New ‘Batman: Arkham Shadow’ Trailer Reveals Gameplay, Quest 3 Graphics, & Fall Release Date

By
Ben Lang
-
66

In development by Meta first-party studio Camouflaj, Batman: Arkham Shadow is one of the most highly anticipated VR games of 2024, and one the first title from the company to be Quest 3 exclusive. A new trailer for the game gives us quite a bit: the first look at real gameplay, what we can expect from Quest 3 graphics, and a Fall release window.

Batman fans with a Quest 3 will be happy to see a newly revealed “October 2024” release date for Arkham Shadow, which means we’ll be able to play the game in less than two and a half months.

The trailer also gives us a first look at real gameplay, which certainly looks on-brand both mechanically and thematically compared to the other Batman Arkham games.

We can see Batman’s grappling launcher cleverly used as a vehicle for both distant interactions with enemies (pulling them closer for a smackdown) and locomotion. We also see lots of classic Arkham gameplay tropes like gliding, stealth, combat dodging, and ‘detective vision’.

Image courtesy Camouflaj

The trailer’s fine print specifies “Captured in-engine. Actual gameplay may vary.” This likely means the footage was actually captured from a PC development build. However, given that we know this game is exclusive to Quest 3 and is very unlikely to launch on PC, it’s fair to assume the trailer represents the graphical bar the studio is aiming for when running on Quest 3.

Image courtesy Camouflaj

Assuming that’s the case, the game is visually looking very impressive compared to the average Quest title, and will hopefully be a great showcase of what Quest 3 is capable of when pushed to its limits.

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


Ben Lang
Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • Mateusz Jakubczyk

    VR GOTY already :D

    • polysix

      On an LCD based mobile chipset? hardly.

      • Mateusz Jakubczyk

        Luckily, not on a crappy OLED with a small PPD, ugly Mura, large SDE and Fresnel lenses that blur the image :D

        • Nevets

          Stop it the pair of you, or I'll bang your heads together. Between mobile chipsets and LCD on the one hand, and Fresnel lenses and thick cords tugging your head at the other, neither headset is the dream hardware.

          • Mateusz Jakubczyk

            Tell that to the guy above who desperately tries to prove PSVR2's superiority over Quest 3 in every post :D I'm just enjoying this long-awaited game here :P

          • NicoleJsd

            I can’t believe console wars returned to gaming but in even more insufferable edition

            I have index and quest 3 and while quest 3 is overall better index has some things that are vastly superior. Like sound, fov or minimal latency. Every hardware has pros and cons and no need to identify with it religiously

  • Gonzax

    It looks amazing!!

  • Andrey

    THIS! This is a true Quest 3 exclusive that platform needs. And this should have been a launch title and not something as pathetic as "AAA-wannabe" Asgard's Wrath 2. More games like this (based on famous IPs) will bring new "waves" of people, why Meta can't understand it? If even after THIS kind of gameplay trailer that mops the floor with 99,9% of all other VR games (even something as big as Assassin's Creed Nexus) all those crybabies that were (and maybe even still) crying that "it's so unfair that new Arkham game is for stupid VR!!!1" won't buy – or at least want to buy – a headset to play it, then they are nothing more than a lost cause to the gaming industry as a whole. Because even for an experienced VR enthusiast as myself it looks cool as *&^%.
    I was looking forward to play this game before, but now I just can't wait to do it this fall! Absolute mustbuy and immediate GOTY if developers won't do something very stupid (like bad optimization of if it's only 2-3 hours of gameplay, etc.). Fingers crossed that game will turn out to be as cool as this trailer!

    • ViRGiN

      Yep the trailer is encouraging from the first seconds!

      • VR5

        Sorry to use your post to reply to someone else but…
        >And this should have been a launch title and not something as pathetic as "AAA-wannabe" Asgard's Wrath 2.
        Launching this on a device that starts at $500 would have limited its potential, it's much better to time it with the 3S. Not to mention that it wasn't ready last year.

        Wrath II and AC: Nexus, which both were critically well received and evidently high budget, targeted Quest 2, they were not needed to sell Quest 3, which is a great value proposition for those who can afford it. It vastly outsold same price range competition too in monthly sales on Amazon.

        Meta's strategy is on point, releasing the better/pricier hardware first, their investments in high profile games, having Batman's gameplay reveal at Gamescom where people can try it. They're the market leader for a reason.

        • Peter vasseur

          They’re a market leader because they undercut competition, by subsidizing their headsets. They lose billions per quarter. The only reason they can do that is because they are using profits from the parent company.

          • ViRGiN

            There is no competition.

          • Peter vasseur

            No competition because the other companies can’t lose billions per quarter, for years, funding lower prices to uncut and gain market share.

            The sales of quest 3 are nowhere near what quest two was in the same time on market. Why because the price for quest 3 is more in line with normal prices than the super subsidized quest 2. Hence the reason for quest 3 s, got to be cheaper. It takes best part of the quest 3 out though.

            Everyone saw what the sales percentages were for psvr2, when it was at $350. Clearly cost is the issue for the majority, no matter what headset. Reality is this is just what vr cost and everyone got spoiled by metas subsidies to gain market share with the quest 2.

            They bought their market leader status with money from their parent company. Without them they are a glass house and would be forced to operate like all the other companies in the sector. Then they wouldn’t necessarily be a leader, could be Sony psvr1 which is one of the best selling had so far in history. Probably second to the quest 2 On numbers sold.

            it’s ok I know it’s hard for you to grasp these concepts. Anyone who has read your comment understands as well.

          • ViRGiN

            Nobody was buying $199 WMR. It’s not about the price. But i know it’s hard for you to grasp.

          • Peter vasseur

            The war headsets were a quasi vr proprietary windows headset. That why nobody bought them. Because they were junk compared to what was on offer. Plus you still needed a computer to run it which was another $1500 at the time. I know it’s hard for you to think outside the box. Not everyone is blessed with critical thinking skills.

          • ViRGiN

            i don’t know man, people still buy the crappiest vr headset ever made, valve index.

          • kakek

            It's not ONLY about the price.

          • kakek

            Personally, I didn't buy Q3 because it's was too pricey, to early, for a marginal upgrade. It's a bit better than Q2, but it's still far from even early PCVR quality.
            Quests feel like they do half generation anyway. One or 2 of the 3 quests should not have existed. The Q2 didn't feel like a generational upgrade over Q1, neither does Q3 over Q2.
            The gap between Q1 and Q3 is what I would expect of 2 gaming device a generation apart.
            And I guess I'll have to wait for Q4 to see something that makes me feel it's worth upgrading my Q2.

          • Peter vasseur

            That’s because they release it every two years. Way too fast imo. They’re already talking about quest 4 in a year. The cheap quest 3 is coming in a few months. It’s almost like the yearly phone scam. To each their own.

          • Nevets

            It's not like "the yearly phone scam" where Samsung and Apple release basically the same phone each year. VR is evolving rapidly and every jump in GPU power, and any additional features enabled by better hardware, are both essential to move the platform forward, and welcome. I'd be happy with an annual hardware refresh, although I know many consumers would feel cheated and alienated.

          • VR5

            You aren’t wrong but the “losing billions” part has nothing to do with them subsidizing the headsets. Most of that is for R&D for future headsets.

            Shipping millions of headsets per year helps with reducing price, as well as selling at cost or slightly below it and making up for the lost profits with software sales. Sony has done that with Playstation.

            Basically actually supporting their platform, like Sony does with the flat PS, is part of their working strategy. Nintendo, Sega, Sony, MS, they all had to do this to compete.

            Trying to sell a device that is too expensive is just bad strategy. Getting the price right with Quest is the most important strategic aim and Meta doesn’t need to lose billions for that. Those two things are unrelated.

          • True… but are you really going to complain about getting a $1000+ headset for $500? The Quest3 should have been WAY more expensive, just from hardware alone.

          • Peter vasseur

            No it’s great for all the poor people who can’t afford market prices. The problem is the distortion it’s creates in a society that has largely lost its critical thinking skills. The it’s too expensive mantra, is a problem for real vr. Not low end vr like the quest 3 as a standalone. It’s a shady practice that ultimately harms the sector. Which in turn harms the users.

        • I really liked Assassin's Creed in VR.

          These purists need to stuff it. I'd rather have some nice, enjoyable VR title then a "Flawless" one nobody ever gets to see because it got dropped in development. I'm fine with some jank.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Hm, I am happy you are so enthusiastic about the trailer, which does look good. But it is not a game yet… I do not understand why you think this will be so much better than AW2, other than that you may be a fan of Batman.

      • Andrey

        At the very least because AW2 is a boring, mediocre and overhyped piece of crap and you really don’t need to do anything special to easily exceed it?
        I am indeed a fan of Batman, but not a hardcore fan that owns his costume and runs down the street at night screaming “I am BATMAAAAAN!”. It’s just that in this trailer – that was, again, VERY well done even just from trailer creation side – they included so much things from “flat” Arkham games that not only there, but also adapted for VR and work extremely well (like combat – again, only based on trailer, though I belive that it will play the same in reality). In this trailer alone they showed more in quantity and much more well-done gameplay mechanics that AW2 have in it’s “60 hours of gameplay”. And I think we both realize that developers never show everything in trailers, so there will be even more variety in the game itself?
        Just an example – I am a much bigger fan of Attack on Titan anime, yet I hate “official” game from UNIVRS that just released and also overhyped by oblivious people who drool just by seeing their favorite character in front of them. Because in every aspect it is so much lacking and lazy job, that even “Early Access” label can’t excuse it, especially from a “professional” developer. So no, my fanatism for Batman have nothing to do with how I percieve this particular product. If it was another Gotham Knights or Kill the Justice League-level of trash – but in VR, – I would be the first one to throw a rock at it.

        • Peter vasseur

          The game looks like it could be cool. But it also kinda looks like a rails kinda game. Like blood n truth, atleast the action sequences look scripted. Not that it isn’t fun. This video doesn’t give a clear overall gameplay. Not much shown walking around, a lot of teleportation style moving, dressed up with anime effects. We’ll see when it released.

          • Andrey

            I read that in an interviews developers mentioned that it will be like the very first Arkham Asylum game, so it will be semi-open world or metroidvania if you prefer. Basically I imagine it to be something as Vampire The Masquerade Justice, but bigger, better (especially variaty-wise) and about Batman.

  • ApocalypseShadow

    Does look pretty good. Much more gameplay VR gamers are looking for. Batman VR was good. But we wanted more than just an experience. This looks like a game and has detective elements. Worth staying on my wishlist.

    On a side note, still no article about GTA? What's the hold up?

    • spirr9986

      You are very Right where is GTA

      • ApocalypseShadow

        Multiple sites have reported that it's on hold indefinitely. But, the most viewed and commented on VR site has said nothing on it. Only making articles about what's coming over what is obviously is not. And that's fine that they want to show what to look forward to as a positive thing.

        But news is also reporting about the bad things. And they're not going to mention that the biggest announcement for Quest 2 and 3, that gamers were looking forward to, has been shelved?

        That's kind of strange.

        • VR5

          RTVR aren't really holding back with negative opinions, especially against Meta. I think they voiced concerns about it having been quietly cancelled multiple times. Lack of article is curious though.

      • Peter vasseur

        The fanboys couldn’t handle it because it shows a limitations of mobile vr.

        • ViRGiN

          GTA was cancelled cause Flat2VR mod proven there is only 13 people wanting to play it in VR.

          • Well then rack that count up to 14, because I'm interested.

          • ViRGiN

            noted

  • ViRGiN

    Looks excellent! Far more thrilling than HL Alyx.

    • kakek

      Lol
      Still buthurt that, 10 years and billions later, Meta still can't claim the title of best overall VR game ?

      Relax, I'm sure in another decade, on quest 6, you will be able to say that without it being wishful fanboyism.

      I mean, PCVR being comatose and Valve seemingly having no plan to do anything about it, sooner or later the mobile hardware will catch-up, and someone else will make another AAA titles.

      Eventually.

      • ViRGiN

        gayben

        • kakek

          You confuse me with your dopleganger. I expect more evolved trolling than one word answer.

    • VRDeveloper

      I'm impressed how people keep falling on your "rage bait"

      • I blocked this deeply disturbed person long time ago. All I see is "content unavailable". I recommend this to all.

  • NL_VR

    It looks really good.
    looking forward

  • Love it

  • Octogod

    Bets on if realtime shadows exist in the final version?

    • VRDeveloper

      As a developer, I wanted to know honestly, do you keep asking for shadow in real time just to mock the Meta Quest lack of power or is it really something crucial?

      Because my indie game will be released on Meta Quest 2 and it is impossible to have shadows in real time, although Quest 3 can put this I doubt they will do since apparently the graphic of the game is already very good.

      • Octogod

        It is not mocking, nor are shadows crucial to gameplay.

        My comment highlights that the “in-engine game footage” is likely using improved effects which are unlikely to be in the Quest 3 launch version.

        But do users care? Yes, some do. They often mention in debut footage or Quest reviews on the lack of shadows. They’re not aware of the limits of the hardware.

        • VRDeveloper

          Got it, thanks for explaining.

          • ichigo

            I'm fully happy with the level of graphics in mobile VR but most of the games i have played had problems with shadows. All i ask is they bake them in better. They don't even have to be real time. It can help with being more immersive. GreenHell being the latest i played with shadow issues while looking really good on a mobile chip.

          • VRdeveloper

            I understand, I'll take this tip into consideration. Thank you

      • If they want shadows that badly, just make a PCVR version. You're making it on the PC anyways. Add some hooks to turn on-off advanced features, like shadows, and roll out a PCVR version. I did so for all of my games.

    • Jonathan Winters III

      Thankfully the dev has addressed this in a recent interview. Realtime shadows were a KEY portion of making the game immersive.

      • Octogod

        Very cool! Appreciate you passing this along.

  • Simplex

    The trailer’s fine print specifies “Captured in-engine. Actual gameplay may vary.” This likely means the footage was actually captured from a PC development build.

    This is actually pure speculation. Thanks to this fine piece of journalism I already saw one guy claiming this trailer was captured on PC as if it was an undisputable fact. I asked for a source and here I am.
    If you ever watched trailer for Climb 2 (also a Quest exclusive) you'd notice that it had a very similar fine print, but with one critical difference:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8fbee85490efe3372f79cf6ab2796aeea9e9005e748c6034c2f99ec9a688c406.jpg
    Why would Meta omit that information in this trailer, if they had no problem revealing it in the past? And at that time it was even more contentious and risky because many people still hoped they would not abandon PCVR.
    At this point PCVR is 100% abandoned by Meta so why would they shoot themselves in the foot by teasing people with an unavailable PC version?

    Don't make dumb speculation if you can't back it up with proof. In this case it's more likely that the gameplay was captured on a Quest 3, not PC. But if you have evidence it was PC, I'll gladly see it.

    • Nevets

      You're deriding speculation by adding a different type of speculation. Just settle for "it isn't clear yet" and leave it at that.

      • I can agree with you on that – this is what the author should have written in the first place, instead of baseless speculation.

        That comment was deriding baseless speculation by adding a speculation based on how Meta behaved in a similar situation in the past – so it's not the same thing as a completely baseless speculation in the article. I hope you can see the difference.

        /Simplex

  • polysix

    That people are seeing this as some holy grail of VR in 2024 is beyond sad. IT LOOKS LIKE GAMES FROM 10 years ago.. all because META wanted to cost cut their way to the top instead of supporting "proper" VR.
    It looks OK at best, am sure it's fun but I have NO compelling reason to play anything like that in VR that looks like something I can't believe in.

    THANK GOD FOR PS5+PSVR2.. where real VR exists. GT7 and RE4VR are worth 20 of these 'quest exclusives'.

    • Mateusz Jakubczyk

      *The sad whining of Sony fanboys with their burning butts…*

    • Nevets

      am sure it's fun but I have NO compelling reason to play anything like that in VR that looks like something I can't believe in

      Just out of interest – how do you manage to balance a VR headset on your face? I guess you have some sort of strap arrangement like the stock VIsion Pro, but extra tight due to the absence of your nose (which you cut off to spite your face).

    • If you have PSVR2 then play Compound. Perhaps this will make you realise VR does not need 100% photorealistic graphics to be entertaining.

  • Yeshaya

    Blindly optimistic question about the PC Dev version. Are these PC builds generally playable, or are they more like test betas they can use for general compiling/testing of the game without moving it onto a headset for each test?
    I'm wondering if there's any situation where we might get a PC version. Obviously they're making this game to push Quest 3's, so they aren't going to sell this to people who will run it on their Index/PSVR2/Quest 2. But what if they released it as an add-on, and you could only get it on accounts that already own a Quest 3 and the base game, and they add DRM (bleh) to prevent solutions like ReVive? They could announce it's provided as-in and unsupported, so they won't need to put more work into PC support, which is of course more annoying than console support. Even if the only difference is better super sampling and higher FPS there would still be people who'd prefer to play this on PC, all the more so if it could actually have better shadows, lighting, unconscious thugs not disappearing, etc. Any chance they'd do that?

    • Mateusz Jakubczyk

      Zero chance. Meta is not making this game to be available for PCVR. This game is simply meant to sell Quests 3.

    • Nevets

      Every sale of the game to an existing Quest 3 owner will drive the buyer's use of their Quest 3 and likely result in further purchases of software with commission for Meta.

      Every sale of the game to somebody who buys a Quest 3/3S specifically for that game will be worth hundreds of dollars to Meta.

      Diverting this revenue to PC users for the commission alone won't be worthwhile to Meta, particularly given the amount of funding for the game.

    • The PC version will come immediately after PC versions of The Climb 2, Assasin's Creed Nexus and Asgard's Wrath 2.

  • DjArcas

    jesus christ, they've got a grapple? I nearly puked just looking at the trailer.

  • I like ALOT of what I'm seeing here!

    Still… why not PCVR? It's developed on the PC. It's like an unreleased version we'll never get to see first hand!

    If it's the Unreal engine, it's SUPER EASY to export a PCVR version. You can even get the engine to swap high-resource verses low-resource files on the fly, as well as turn on-off advanced features. It's very good at it.

    It's just lazy to not have, at least the option, for a PCVR version. Also, just for the pride of the developers, why not allow them to show off the game in it's full glory?