Couch co-op. please!

Gearbox I want to have faith in you. Will battleborn be able to be played split screen? I was sorely disappointed when I found out that Destiny wasn’t and am stoked for 4 Players in the handsome collection!

1 Like

Battleborn has a 5 player co-op campaign that can be played as 2 player splitscreen or online with 4 friends.

1 Like

So far it’s only 2 player split screen. Maybe they’ll add 4-way later though, who knows.

With Borderlands the handsome collection they could do 4 player co-op because the games were designed for the previous console generation. Console with 512MB memory, the new consoles have 8GB. With these capabilities Borderlands is easy to render for them. Battleborn is designed with the new hardware limitations in mind. With the new resources the game is getting more detailed character models, more ai, better lighting effects, etc etc. to shape the ultimate single player experience. With splitscreen often games reduce the frame rate from 60 to 30 fps, because the console has to render two game sessions instead of one. For two players you can afford this loss in frame rate, because 30 fps is acceptable, going below that isn’t a fun experience. Making the game smoother to run means taking stuff out of the game, this isn’t something you want to do as most of the people that buy your game play single player or co-op online. Design choices are a …

1 Like

30 fps is far from “acceptable”.

Except it is. 60 is the standard. 30 is still playable. Less than 30 is unacceptable.

Just like wheels without tires are acceptable for modern vehicles.

1 Like

Sometimes no tires is better

But seriously, why are you picking this fight? Is frames-per-second on versions of games you’ll never play? 30fps in split screen is great.

You know what would make that GIF a lot better? A reasonable frame rate.

I’m not picking any fight. 30 fps for an action shooter is not “acceptable”, as one put it. I simply want people to have the best gaming experience they can. I guess that makes me a jerk.

30 FPS in split screen is not great, and it is undeniably inferior to 60 fps. You bought a 60Hz display. Why wouldn’t you want to use it?

Well I can see why you’d want 60 fps for a twitch shooter, but not so much for this game. Maybe it’s cause I’ve made do with 30 fps for so long but I really don’t see how doubling it is a must.

acceptable is a brough term. Something that’s acceptable to me might not me the case for you or vise versa. keep in mind that there are hardware limitations, there is that much the developer can do. It’s all about making choices and keeping in mind what the majority of their target user group wants and what the developer wants to craft.

Some people can’t see the difference between 30 fps or 60 fps, my wife doesn’t notice if she is watching a HD video or a standard definition video. My son can’t see 3D images. I’m probably somewhat color blind because most men have a 4% deviation.

of course everyone wants the game to run on 8K and 120 fps but some developers are already having trouble getting their games to render 1080p on the Xbox One & PS4. Because a lot of sales are still made on those platform they have to keep those limitations in mind.

Everything has to be in balance, i’m sure Gearbox is doing the best they can to deliver a awesome experience.

Nah, to improve it you need 2 SMGs and Verdi: Requim Dies Irae playing max volume.

How many split screen online games have you played? Because 30fps would be a miracle compared to Bl2, Uncharted 3 etc… (COD seemed to handle it alright though)

This is all hyperthetical anyway, we don’t know BattleBorns framerate for consoles, I really hope it is 60, but we don’t know.

If it is 60, and they drop it to 30 in splitscreen, and it keeps both stable then I’ll be more than happy.

I don’t play split screen. My gaming rig uses multiple displays. When I launch multiple instances of Borderlands 2, I have no trouble maintaining 60 fps, even at 3 full 1080p displays.

All I’m saying is that wanting 30 fps gameplay for competitive shooter gameplay is like wanting concrete shoes for a race.

We certainly want FPS as high as possible. Though, every generation we always struggle a bit with Expansion Frenzy (I just totally made up that term) where we get more horsepower and then we immediately fill it with stuff. There’s this drawn-out period where we internally battle on making it pretty vs. making it performant. We usually compromise somewhere in the middle.

We’re certainly keenly aware that competitive needs to be responsive. That’s both from a client and a server perspective, btw. Doesn’t matter how many FPS you can produce if your server is only updating at a 300ms ping.

Also, splitscreen. You’re effectively rendering two screens in the space of one. We have to account for that. I glad so many people appreciate and use splitscreen. But man is it a lot of work to support splitscreen at standards that make it useful to you guys.

Also, we’ve intentionally designed Battleborn to be a bit…what’s the right way to say it? Broader? Resilient? … in terms of performance. Some characters (like Marquis or Thorn, or long rangers) really do want good performance for maximum aim responsiveness. They are “twitchy”. Others, (especially melee characters like Rath or Phoebe) are quite a bit more forgiving on that basis. The melee game is far more about smart engagements and use of abilities than it is landing concurrent head shots. Even Thorn can be played more skill-based (rather than main attack based), using her AOE Blight and Volley fire to focus more on area control rather than big damage snipes. Might not be optimal for her, but you can certainly make a case for it conditionally.

I think for that reason, we may have some latitude both in terms of types of player skill and types of performance that are required for a good experience.

ALL THAT SAID - we’re not yet to the point where we can safely commit to a performance number, other than to admit that anything under 30 is abysmal and should be avoided.

1 Like

First, thank you for the detailed message and confirmation that the server performance is a priority.

Not that I have to choose personally, but if I did- I’d take performance over aesthetic every time.

Will the PC version allow for 120/144 refresh rate options with proper hardware?

I find it very hard to enjoy tight, intricate gameplay at inferior frame rates.

We do have graphic options on the PC, too. :slight_smile: So, if you play there, there will be some ways to optimize for framerate, and we usually do a fair job of making that not look like ass when lower all of your settings down.

I was never a guy (in the old Quake days) who could run at 640x480 simply because I needed the competitive edge. I like textures and details. But I’ve played enough competitive shooters that I’m well aware of the feeling you get when you’re sure you shot someone but the game disagrees.

Haha awesome! Yeah, I only play PC.

You said you didn’t play at 640x480 for an edge.

I’m curious- would you rather play at 1080p120 or 2160p60, when you are playing competitively.

Great! Thanks for the info everyone!

30 FPS is absolutely fine.
Framerate junkies annoy me.

1 Like

This makes me happy, I just really don’t want to deal with how Borderlands handled online (slow moving projectiles + any ounce of lag = horror)

With the whole split-screen thing, if Incursion mode is how moba-ish as it has been sounding, please for love of all holy don’t allow split-screen for that game type.
If I compare it to LoL, nothing worse than someone DC-ing or just quitting because of some misc reason, it would be horrid if that was two people from your team just DC-ing/quitting.
(plus the obvious disadvantage your team now has with splitscreen players on your side.)