The author (me) tested the game using an Intel Core i7 4790k on an ASUS Z97i mini-ITX mobo, 16gb of 2133 mhz RAM, a 500gb Samsung 840 EVO, and an EVGA GTX 970 SC. I also never said 30 fps was acceptable for elitists (when did elitist become a negative term in the PC gaming world? It just means they pay for more hardware and therefore expect more, rightfully so!) I simply stated that it was playable. I also never excused the reported performance issues, and was clear stating I wasn't experiencing the same problems. Is 30 fps acceptable for my hardware config? No, but instead of harping on that I pushed forward to review a game that despite the issues, was very fun to play. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon, I pointed out the positives in a largely negative situation. Performance will improve, according to WB Games, and if they fail and give up on fixing it, I will gladly write the article to state the obvious, that "they screwed up". But honestly, it seems a lot of gamers are giving this game the Ben Affleck treatment, completely trashing it before giving it a chance to improve, or even surprise you. As frustrating as day one glitches can be, all games of this nature improve with time. Could I have spent more time testing with different hardware components to further elaborate on the performance issues? Sure, but I had limited time, and felt it more important to focus on the actual gameplay, features, and story, which don't make up for the performance problems, but definitely gives me a reason to be patient for fixes. I liked this game, despite the lackluster performance, and if those issues are solved in a timely manner would recommend it to anyone with a PC that likes Batman.