Like TechRyze I'm curious as to the audience for this. I love to consume content in this way but if I'm paying the same as a magazine subscription, I would be extremely wary of quality - I presume the first month or so will need to be free for people to be comfortable?

The real problem is that I already have access to this sort of high quality HD digital content direct to console via Revision 3. To compete with the free CO-OP or Totally Rad Show would require some really impressive content or exclusives, particularly if this is still using advertising in addition to a subscription fee.

I would guess it's because the Xbox Live infrastructure is better set up to handle it. To participate in a free beta still requires Gold membership and that's where the money to support the required infrastructure comes from.

That Sony is still able to support a fairly impressive platform as a free service is impressive, but it would lose a lot of money through support for betas before people have paid anything. Unless returns via game sales were virtually guaranteed, it doesn't make much business sense.

And it's particularly impressive/fortunate that it's found an art style visually impressive enough hopefully to draw in people outside the usual demographic for these more experimental offerings. When I first saw a preview video several months ago there was little evidence of an actual game at work but I was already itching to explore this world. That will still be short-lived, of course, if it lacks a coherent and functional approach to player interaction.

I must admit I remain massively sceptical about its UI (I had assumed the runes were placeholders until he finalised icons).

So when asked why supply was limited the rep answered that in the past they had not given a reason for why it was limited. First rate response there. Any ideas? Was it an attempt to keep the price high throughout its run rather than flooding the market? Low sales projections for a "real" game on Wii?

Ben, I'd probably buy a copy of 'wave a stick carnival shovel-mania' just to reward their honesty...

I loved the first game but am slightly wary of a quick sequel. The chief problem is setting the original in Arkham Asylum was a stroke of genius. From a storytelling standpoint it allowed them to dip freely into a vast number from the rogues gallery of Batman villains without it ever feeling contrived – and it was this that kept the game feeling fresh and varied.

From a gameplay perspective Arkham Island gave the player a sizeable but ultimately self-contained world to explore, arguably making the exploration side a lot more satisfying than a city-wide space and neatly avoiding the problem of artificial borders (while also giving a false sense of non-linearity towards the end once the island was opened up, even though the game was entirely linear).

A sequel presumably would be set elsewhere in Gotham since a return to Arkham would likely feel too similar, which would undermine two elements that I think were key the first game’s experience. Rocksteady have certainly proved themselves immensely capable and I’m naturally very keen to see what they produce next, but I fear that until some time has passed, surpassing Arkham Asylum may not be possible, even for them.