Buy the season pass to get a cheaper price or shut up. This isn’t new.
2 Likes
Have you played any of the previous Borderlands before? It has always been as such. That is what has us players hooked, the DLC is normally like another game.
5 Likes
I need to add this phrase to my lexicon.
3 Likes
This isn’t a couple of multiplayer maps. It’s full fleshed story content. Why would anyone think you’d get that for free? Honestly getting Maliwan for free is more than you’ll get with most games.
4 Likes
To season pass or single dlc?
I’ll check tomorrow on PS4 version.
1 Like
Devs gotta eat, content costs money.
This isn’t a competitive game, nor does the DLC just hand you power, so it’s definitely not pay to win. If we want to reasonably debate value for money, that’s impossible until the DLC drops and we know how much content there is.
I don’t see the point or logic behind this post as anything more than “But I want it for free 
”
If you bought the $100 version you have the season pass and the Moxxi DLC already, so I definitely have no idea what you’re complaining about.
11 Likes
That’s pretty much what I was going to say. Content costs money to make in form of employee salaries among other expenses. I can’t think of a single AAA developer or publisher who make a game not expecting a return on their investment. The OP’s refusal to explain their opinion tells me it’s likely a case of wanting something for free. I both disagree and have no respect for that type of opinion.
2 Likes
I’m guessing by the not great English he’s posting from outside America, where it might be $100 of their money, I know here in Australia standard version launch was $99 at some retailers. That doesn’t mean I’d expect free dlc lol.
2 Likes
Playing a little Devil’s advocate here, not charging for DLC is not unprecedented. CDPR, who is probably the best independent game studio currently in the market, with the Witcher 3, which incidentally won more GotY awards than any other game in the industry’s history. They didn’t need to sell their DLC because the game was that good, and they still made a ton of profit. And in case you haven’t played it, the DLC was huge. My understanding is that they are planning the same for Cyberpunk 2077 - free DLC.
This is par for the course. Nothing new.
But to the guy talking about inflation: does the revenue form that cost increase go to the developers, or does it help executives buy additional cars and boats? Get real.
Not sure who pissed in your Wheaties but let this be a lesson children…stay in school
4 Likes
No, it actually shouldn’t. Why should it? the FACT is that it takes a lot of time, money and effort to create something. would you hand out something you made for free to everyone that took you months and cost you a lot of money to make? i don’t think so, but if yes - more power to you i guess. that’s just not how the world works though.
7 Likes
Both.
More units sold = greater royalty payouts to the developers = bigger bonuses to devs (provided Randy is compensating his people well) and the promise that Gearbox can keep paying everyone for another day.
More units sold also = greater revenue to the publisher = more bonuses for guys in suits, paychecks to all the operations people, and warm shareholder fuzzies so those guys can make tons of money selling paper back and forth between each other.
There are a whole lot more people involved in making games these days due to increased consumer expectations of art and tech quality, as well as PR and marketing requirements - AAA games require hundreds of people just to develop, and hundreds more on the publishing end. In the Playstation 1 era you were looking at dev teams 1/4th the size they are today. I’m genuinely surprised games aren’t more expensive than they are, and that’s even before we talk about all the inevitable money lost on incompetence and inefficiency.
5 Likes
Blood and wine was free then?
1 Like
it was not. though both heart of stone and blood and wine were quite cheap and provided ton of content, great value to the customer.
I get witcher did some cool free content, but BL3 is also doing that with Maliwan and Heck already. Asking people to pay for full story content is perfectly reasonable, and witcher did exactly that.
8 Likes
BL1 launched. You paid extra for the DLC, right up until the full GOTY edition came out with it bundled in. I don’t remember if there was a season pass.
BL2 launched. You could either buy the season pass or buy each DLC and extra playable character separately. Eventually the game was re-released as the Handsome Collection on XB1 & PS4 with all the DLC included. Oh yeah, there was a GOTY version at some point.
TPS launched. You could either buy the season pass or buy each DLC and extra playable character separately. Eventually the game was re-released as the Handsome Collection on XB1 & PS4 with all the DLC included.
Then the Triple Pack came out with BL1, BL2, TPS all-in.
BL3 launched. You can either but the season pass or buy each DLC separately. Except everyone got bonus additional content free.
Did I miss anything? I’m honestly not seeing a point to this thread atm…
7 Likes
You are both right and wrong: yes there was free content released, but the two main expansions weren’t. Also, GBX is doing the same thing: releasing small DLCs for free and charging for the bigger ones. I have played TW 3 and enjoyed it, but your response isn’t germane to what I said. I can see no reason for why the new DLCs would be released for free and expecting them to be seems like an entitled attitude to me. I’m willing to entertain opinions to the contrary if there’s an explanation as to why one feels that way, but I highly doubt the topic is willing or even able to do so.
1 Like