Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Borderlands 3: Mayhem is Coming September 13 2019
    • Definitely interested. I enjoyed the first two games, especially the splitscreen co-op with a friend. Some think this just looks like a rehash with no big changes, but personally I don't necessarily need it to be a giant step forward. It's still too early to say anyway, there must be some good changes at the very least. The visuals, while not groundbreaking, still look like they hold up alright.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by ich Will ().

    • if you'd said this was a trailer for borderlands 2 expansion pack I'd have believed you, lol. BUT still can't wait to play it :3 Borderlands is a simple concept, i dont need anything flashy from them. Apparently all you need to make me buy your game is guns with legs, i had no idea i wanted that but now I want that!!
    • People on Steam are pissed and tried review bombing Borderlands 1, 2, and Presequel.

      At first, Steam did nothing about this until Randy Pitchford (Gearbox CEO) piped up with this:

      Ironically, that this misuse is possible and that Steam has no interest in correcting this misuse makes me kind of happy about 2K's decision and makes me want to reconsider Gearbox Publishing's current posture on the platform"

      Steam has since made it so that negative reviews no longer affect the overall score for those games (the negative reviews are still visible though).

      I'm asking as a person who doesn't PC game and doesn't actually understand the backlash here - why is this such a huge deal? Is Epic Games Store that shitty or what is it?

      @Topaz Mutiny - you've made a comment regarding this - you might be able to answer my question.

      Actually, I also read that article you posted and this struck me:

      Many PC players, though, have said they aren't happy with exclusivity deals that force a game onto a platform that is lacking important Steam features like achievements, mods, user reviews, purchases in many foreign currencies, and more. Epic has laid out a roadmap to introduce these and other features to the Epic Games Store in the coming year. Other users have expressed concern about Epic's data security practices, too, though Epic has pushed back against those concerns.

      For people to head out on Steam to review bomb a series because of lacking things such as achievements, mods, user reviews seems really petty to me.

      Exclusivity has been something console gamers have dealt with for years. Is it just that PC gamers have become to used to just getting whatever game they want and doing whatever they want with them (re: mods)?

      That isn't meant to start anything - just genuinely curious as I just don't understand this whole train of thought from people doing this.


      Sig & Avvy by Lady Sunshine, the most wonderful girl in the world
    • @Big Daddy Biggles

      I've looked into it and I think I have a very basic understanding of the backlash. The main complaint I see out there is that people are annoyed of having to go between another client in order to access their games. There's already Steam, Origin, Uplay, Battlenet, Bethesda.net, GOG just on my PC, and this throws another client into the mix which means another login and friends list to manage.

      The other complaints stem from a mixture of company policies. To my knowledge they don't have a refund policy in place, there are account security issues at play, a lot of the social features aren't included, and others which I can't name off the top of my head.

      To top all of it off, they're paying game pubs/devs a lot of money to sell their games exclusively on their platform as well as only taking a 10% cut from the game instead of 30% that Steam does. So it's not like you can buy say the Witcher 3 on Steam or GOG, whichever you prefer, you have to buy it on one client which a lot of people are calling that a monopoly.

      My two cents? I really do think its blown out of proportion and it all seems more like people trying to find any reason to get annoyed. The review bombing imo is petty. Those articles do indicate the company is looking to improve the client, so really I'm just interested to see how this plays out. I think this really is a case of a few pissed off people making a lot of noise.
      It's a shame to ruin such a beautiful morning by being awake

      -Bill Watterson
    • I honestly don't feel sorry for people getting upset about "another game client". You want to play on PC, that's the risk you run. Getting upset over it doesn't seem justified in my eyes.

      And from what I know, Steam basically started out exactly the same - bare minimum features.

      Then they got some income, upgraded, and are what they are now. I'm sure in time Epic Store will get where it needs to (especially because they literally gave a road map for all that they are implementing).

      Honestly, having more competition is a good thing. Steam is too big for it's own britches and every time someone tries to get a new launcher going it gets lambasted for not being Steam. Valve then just has to sit back, count their money, and let the community destroy their competition for them.

      Basically it's just like a spoiled child not getting their way throwing a tantrum until people just give in and give them what they want. Except Gearbox and 2K aren't playing and honestly, I'd support them if they said they were removing all the Borderlands game from Steam. Maybe then people will realize they can't just get their way by making a fuss (I doubt it but hey, I'm a dreamer).


      Sig & Avvy by Lady Sunshine, the most wonderful girl in the world
    • Well I will say this, I don't blame them for not wanting to support a service they don't like. If they don't want it, then more power to them. I don't think it'll amount to much, but I can't be too critical in their right to choose what they want to buy. The reasoning's a different story.
      It's a shame to ruin such a beautiful morning by being awake

      -Bill Watterson
    • Big Daddy Biggles wrote:

      People on Steam are pissed and tried review bombing Borderlands 1, 2, and Presequel.

      At first, Steam did nothing about this until Randy Pitchford (Gearbox CEO) piped up with this:
      Ironically, that this misuse is possible and that Steam has no interest in correcting this misuse makes me kind of happy about 2K's decision and makes me want to reconsider Gearbox Publishing's current posture on the platform"
      Steam has since made it so that negative reviews no longer affect the overall score for those games (the negative reviews are still visible though).
      Well, I wanna make one correction before anything else. Steam has had the review bomb curation policy established and in place long before this kerfuffle went down. Since the policy was implemented a user must willingly opt in to seeing reviews that were manually marked as unusual review activity.

      And that might impact how one would view Randy’s statement.

      I’ll talk about the rest later when I get home from work since I do wanna talk about it. Five minute bathroom break ain’t enough time or focus.
    • Well, today's been a day. But now I can get a proper answer out to @Big Daddy Biggles ^_^

      Apologies for the wall o text. I get kind of rambley when I'm able to explain my thoughts in full instead of going "rawrgle blargle this thing stinks flargle".

      Word Vomit ft Topaz

      Big Daddy Biggles wrote:

      I'm asking as a person who doesn't PC game and doesn't actually understand the backlash here - why is this such a huge deal? Is Epic Games Store that shitty or what is it?[

      @Topaz Mutiny - you've made a comment regarding this - you might be able to answer my question.
      So, it is a big deal, but also overblown at the same time. That just seems to be the new norm for the internet era, and it honestly can be really difficult to reign in emotions and think about things slowly, and with nuance (partly because of how Twitter and other similar formats have conditioned society into reacting with immediacy and in small blurbs that can't do even mildly complicated subjects justice. At least that's how I feel.). I know I enter rage mode a lot.

      Big Daddy Biggles wrote:

      Actually, I also read that article you posted and this struck me:

      Many PC players, though, have said they aren't happy with exclusivity deals that force a game onto a platform that is lacking important Steam features like achievements, mods, user reviews, purchases in many foreign currencies, and more. Epic has laid out a roadmap to introduce these and other features to the Epic Games Store in the coming year. Other users have expressed concern about Epic's data security practices, too, though Epic has pushed back against those concerns.
      For people to head out on Steam to review bomb a series because of lacking things such as achievements, mods, user reviews seems really petty to me.

      Exclusivity has been something console gamers have dealt with for years. Is it just that PC gamers have become to used to just getting whatever game they want and doing whatever they want with them (re: mods)?

      That isn't meant to start anything - just genuinely curious as I just don't understand this whole train of thought from people doing this.
      It's petty, but I can also understand why it got bombed in the first place - there are a lot of people out there who feel that being polite and civilized just doesn't work. Many people feel Twitter and Reddit AMAs are far too selective and can be cherrypicked for the most benign responses already, so there isn't much point in screaming at a brick wall. Review bombs at this time seem to be one of the few ways that big name developers will sit up and pay attention to things gamers are saying - and likely have been saying for a while. It's definitely not an isolated issue.

      And, the reason the previous titled got bombed in the first place is because Epic doesn't have user reviews at all. Upset gamers couldn't directly show their displeasure at Borderlands 3 because most other avenues get curated or closed off. And they probably never will, since Epic's roadmap has indicated that user reviews will be an "opt-in" feature that is in the hands of the developers, not users, to turn on. So those gamers will probably be further frustrated because there is no clear way to voice themselves as I'd bet my left shoe that good ol Randy won't have user reviews enabled for Borderlands 3.


      ... I had several things typed out in regards to the console exclusivity point, and I keep deleting it. Because I'm pretty sure I'm biased without really realizing it. I primarily play Nintendo consoles, and primarily 1st and 2nd-party games at that. Around the time where timed exclusives became popular (as opposed to the ol "hey this game did well, let's port it to other systems") was also around when I kind of dropped off of playing the other consoles and still dabbled in PC gaming here and there. So even as a console gamer, I was never really hit with the effects of timed exclusives, even if now I remember noting it and thinking it was kind of stupid.

      True console exclusives are kind of a no-brainer, since they exist to sell the console. But they are also different, since they were much more likely to have been made by the same company that made the system (and so it makes sense that a company with a console would want to make something that would sell the console), and it's much rarer to be poached than timed exclusivity. Epic isn't really in the business of selling computers, computer parts, or even their distribution platform. So in my eyes, the two really do seem vastly different, even though Sony and Microsoft fought over timed exclusives.

      Those two are also well-established in console development and game distribution, while Epic is just starting out (meanwhile Nintendo is old and weird). And what better way (and a way that rankles people) to fight than bribery and coercion? Rather than make more of their own games or have 2nd-party developers develop new games exclusive to the brand new platform (like Hades), they'd rather poach big title games known to attract attention. And, very specifically, only make it a timed exclusive in regards to Steam. Consoles still get it on time. It's strange to me, because I view the computer itself as the platform, not the digital distribution software.

      Maybe it's because I've played PC games before Steam even existed. And those games were exclusive "to PC" (well... some had console ports but they were really bad). And maybe it's because I had to suffer with a MacBook for a while and there were quite a few games I couldn't play because I had a "platform" those games didn't support. Which was hardware and OS-based rather than software.


      But, we are pretty lucky that these are just timed exclusives. If more of these became true exclusives the reaction would probably be apoplectic. Timed exclusives can still be a very real problem though because people have fear. They fear missing out. They fear getting hit by spoilers during the too-long wait during an age where information can spread everywhere like lightning as soon as it's available and it's all but impossible to avoid for big titles without cutting a lot of social ties. It's like trying to avoid spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War - heckin impossible.

      Those fears are really similar and relatable to the days when global release dates weren't a thing. Games would get released in one country and only show up in another months later, and then another more months later. Now such a thing feels incredibly unusual. Even release dates separated by a couple of weeks or even days are becoming rare. And I'd say that's a relief. So that's another reason why this timed exclusive stuff with Epic feels so icky.


      Right now, I'm upset at what Epic's been doing because it's bad behavior I do not support at all, and their digital distribution isn't good and isn't worth it. It's incredibly similar to how I feel about Nintendo Switch Online, except that has a paywall in addition to bad behavior and poor features compared to competitors.

      Big Daddy Biggles wrote:

      I honestly don't feel sorry for people getting upset about "another game client". You want to play on PC, that's the risk you run. Getting upset over it doesn't seem justified in my eyes.

      And from what I know, Steam basically started out exactly the same - bare minimum features.

      Then they got some income, upgraded, and are what they are now. I'm sure in time Epic Store will get where it needs to (especially because they literally gave a road map for all that they are implementing).
      Related to the above, I do not find newness a suitable reason, or even a reasonable excuse, for Epic's lack of features for a long-established concept. I never appreciated games lacking features and having them be filled in later, so it shouldn't be a surprise that I'd have the same reaction here. I'm sure many people didn't appreciate Nintendo stumbling and bumbling with their online stuff even though Nintendo was "new", because the concept of online (and paid online) consoles had already been around for a while.

      To me, their lack of features is Epic admitting they rushed a half-baked idea out the door, and doing so without doing homework on what makes the product good. And that's not in relation to Steam, that's in relation to the concept of a digital distribution platform.

      Steam was born 15 years ago. It predates Youtube. And it started off as something to update their own games with before growing into the lazy monster it is today (I absolutely agree Steam and Valve have become lazy kings and need to be knocked down a peg; I just wish the means to that end were better). But the key thing is it grew, and gained experience. It learned what people liked and didn't like. Why shouldn't a competitor be able to look at that history and learn from it as well? Why is a competitor not able to comprehend what has become a standard or just makes sense to have in by default?

      I ask, because I don't understand it.

      One doesn't even need to look at Steam to know that a Search function for an online store is a pretty damn important - and basic - feature to have at launch. A shopping cart too in case a person is shopping for multiple items at once. For digital games, offline support is critical and it wasn't there at launch. Cloud saves are also a big "duh" feature considering the nature of computers (harddrives break and or get replaced) and that's still missing. Of course, there are features Epic's missing that Steam has and it's alright if they were added in down the line (cheevos, forums, mods). It's the fact that Epic's missing incredibly important features that is my personal issue. It's like being shown a car that will have seatbelts patched in eventually. No, you need those when you build the car, why aren't they there. Why are people getting mad that I'm mad about the lack of seatbelts.

      And I would argue user reviews are important too. Setting aside the potential for review bombs for the moment, they can help give an alternative opinion rather than the professional reviews which will either be bog-standard glowing or have particular biases due to the specific reviewer that gets the gig. It helps people figure out more specifics about why a game is loved or hated than the limited number of pros can provide. Besides, there's still a big problem surrounding reviewers and how much they can be trusted, so user reviews can at least provide a counterbalance to that without having to go to Youtube to look up a baker's dozen independent reviewers.

      Missing features and poor implementation reminds me a bit of Anthem and its troubled development into a looter shooter. Bioware literally wasn't allowed to compare their game to competitors or look at what they did and what improvements and problems there were, and the game suffered for it. The Austin team had advice for the concept of online multiplayer games and were reportedly ignored, and the game suffered for it. Would the people who exonerate Epic for being new and having a roadmap do the same for Anthem? After all, Bioware was new to looter shooters and have a roadmap for making it better.

      I wouldn't give Bioware a pass, even though I do feel a bit bad for the teams being hit by interference and incompetence and mandates. Management still should've known better.

      Big Daddy Biggles wrote:

      Honestly, having more competition is a good thing. Steam is too big for it's own britches and every time someone tries to get a new launcher going it gets lambasted for not being Steam. Valve then just has to sit back, count their money, and let the community destroy their competition for them.
      I mentioned before I agree Steam's been sitting on its fat ass for too long, but I also wouldn't blame the community entirely for the failures of the competition. Sometimes, bad is bad and that ideally shouldn't be ignored for the sake of adding competition to the market.


      I really do wish the Epic store had turned out better. Everyone was so excited when it was first announced. People thought Steam really was getting a proper competitor. But then it went live and people found out it was a shop that didn't even have half the drywall built and was paying people to block access to the Big Store for a bit so customers would be "encouraged" to come to theirs... maybe because they know their store isn't even finished. Now for some, it might not even matter that it'll be finished eventually.

      Big Daddy Biggles wrote:

      Basically it's just like a spoiled child not getting their way throwing a tantrum until people just give in and give them what they want. Except Gearbox and 2K aren't playing and honestly, I'd support them if they said they were removing all the Borderlands game from Steam. Maybe then people will realize they can't just get their way by making a fuss (I doubt it but hey, I'm a dreamer).
      Given what I've laid out I find this just a wee bit overgeneralizing. If PC gamers are the spoiled kids in this scenario, I would at least argue that Epic and Gearbox are the entitled rich brats buying their way into everything rather than on their own merit.



      Anyways, I hope this big rambley thing clears up why people might be getting really upset over this, and why the review bomb happened. Its definitely due to a lot of different factors, a lot of repeated issues, and personal values and its a lot gathered from various sources and personal anecdotes.

      I apologize if any of it comes off as too forward or aggressive in some parts.