#44

Please read this thread:

With a response from Joe.

#45

Companies are bound by US laws that require them to uphold certain promises if their support staff set the expectation to a customer/customers. (I work for one that actually follows the law and has to follow through with things of this nature per our legal department, so we take incorrect info or lies quite seriously.) So, if 2K’s support staff gave out the incorrect info that’s on the company to make right with the customers. That post has been up for 2+ months, it should have been cleared up well before the actual content dropped and those that purchased the SP based off the info provided by one of the developers of the game’s support, should be compensated in some manner (i.e. a voucher/code to obtain the second SP) or allowed to get refunds.

I have to agree with the prior sentiments that this type of treatment of the content does deviate significantly from 1.) Game DLC models of this type 2.) Prior DLC packages from 2K/Gearbox 3.) If this is all totally “known” and “legit” and it’s tied to my SHIFT account, if I have a PS4 and Xbox One copy of the game I don’t have to pay for the DCL/SP twice there right? It’ll just be accessible from the SHIFT account if the account based argument holds any water 4.) Their support staff lied. Also, as MS tried to tell me: where on 2K’s, GB’s, or the Battleborn site does it state outright (and prior to purchase of the SP) that you have to buy it per account even when playing local/couch co-op? Because it surely doesn’t tell you that before you buy it on the Xbox Live Store.

We have bought all the prior Borderlands games, including the Handsome Jack collection, and all the DLC’s to go with them. I even bought my Dad copies of them all and the DLC bundles so he could play them with us! We have given 2K/GB a good chunk of our limited disposable income and were happy to do so at the time, and we supported their new IP (i.e. Battleborn) only to get burned for it. We pay for Xbox Live. We paid full price to pre-order Battleborn. We paid full price for the Season Pass and they want us to pay even more for a second SP just to access the content locally for couch co-op. Absurdity. Greedy, greedy absurdity.

I got MS to refund the SP last night by pointing out the misrepresentation and lack of providing the content by the promised time frame as well. I sincerely hope it was soon enough for them to revoke the funds back from 2K/GB for the purchase. We also traded in the game to BB today, because we were that ticked off by this. Thanks for turning two fans into major haters. Totally appreciated 2K/GB. We expected better from you.

2 Likes
#46

That actually isn’t even true. I bought a lot of Games plus DLC, unlike most People, i’m not an closeminded DLC Hater, and this is the first time where everyone is locked out on everything i bought. And please stop lying, i myself bought Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops and Ghost with the Mappacks, and you COULD EVERYTHING PLAY ON SPLITSCREEN/CO-OP(and if i have to counter your false claim, i really would download Ghost again and prove you wrong, because i know this for 100% for sure, because the only worth i and my friends/family find in CoD ist the Splitscreen playable botmode, which is pretty rare in these days), even if your splitscreen partners didn’t own the mappacks. I would understand it, if we talk about simple Friendsplay over online…okay but to lock out people on the same Console(aka Splitscreen) is bad practice and stupidly cashgrab. (I mean it could be they changed that in Black Ops 3, okay but than this an rare case - and not common. Commonly you can play every DLC in together in Splitscreen, without the Splitscreen Partner have to pay for the Season Pass DLC as well)

Imagine you buy an upcoming Mario Party or Mario Kart for NX for 70 Bucks, and every player on your console have to buy the same amount so he have also access to the game so you can play together. Or Fifa, or Borderlands 3.
I mean, i acutally feel like betrayed. I’m one of these Guys, who defended Gearbox often on other Forums and Friends, if they blamed Gearbox as bad developers because of outsourced Games like Duke Nukem or Alien. I execused that almost every time. And also i pointed out that Borderlands Series is one of the best Examples, how DLCs should be done. Fair Price, fair package. But this Case is like an Knife in the Back. Its like the trust i have put into them is betrayed by simply greed.

And sorry to say that, i lost so much trust into Gearbox, that they can be sure i won’t buy Borderlands 3 on Console on Release Day(or even at all), until it is guaranteed that you can PLAY EVERYTHING, the Game itself AND the upcoming DLC’s in splitscreen without paying twice(Because like it stands now, it wouldn’t me even suprise if Borlderlands 3 Splitscreen is locked behind an paywall… ). I mean you can’t expect that some People of Family/Friends buy 20 Bucks for an Game they don’t own, for an Console they don’t have. Sorry but that is plain dumb. And some of my Friends who actually considered to buy Battleborn plus maybe season pass decided they will not to support such bad practice.

2 Likes
#47

That’s because those games were on older consoles where you could log in to the same account as a guest.

Different console, account-bound DLC, no guest split-screen.

#48

Black Ops 3 you could play the maps splitscreen they just wouldn’t have the weapons you got with the season pass. Xbox one

#49

So is gearbox going to do something about this or not, I need to know because I’m considering trading the game/ attempt to get a refund for season pass.

#50

I can see where you’re coming from but from a gaming company that has produced 3+ heavily awesome games where couch co op is just as good as solo play in almost all ways, and none of the paid dlc content was locked off for the couch Co op players…

This is kind of ludicrous especially considering I’m one of 2 or more people who were told specifically by gearbox support this would not be the case.
I’ll definitely update the forums on what happens next because I’ll be talking to gearbox.

#51

Gonna disagree with you on the console thing. On x360 my girlfriend and I played Bl2 and the presequal. We both hunt trophies and achievements and whatnot. There is no way in hell we were gonna use guest mode. Not to mention, the one time we tried? We could only use brand new characters. Didn’t go too well with my level 50 mechro…
And yet… I bought dlc. And we were both able to use it. Characters, tiny Tina’s, Torgue, etc.

So no, it’s not the console. It’s the creators. I’ve never seen this. You wanna point to CoD? (Which @LightningYu says is inaccurate) go for it. You gonna bring up how “fair” Activision and all them are with their dlc prices? Or how about when they put Battlefield 2’s online behind a cash wall unless you bought a brand new copy? The day gbx is on par with the puppy mills of the gaming industry is the day I sell anything pertaining to them.

I want to defend gbx. I do. I have spent thousands of hours in the worlds they have hand crafted. I go back through bl2 every year or so at least once… It’s that time of year now actually… And, honestly? This doesn’t affect me. I bought the season pass upon release. My girlfriend got it because she really wanted to use Alani. So I can still play. And I will! I’ll enjoy the hell out of it, too!

That doesn’t make it any less despicable, in my eyes. I hope this is settled in a good way. I approve of their pricing. And what they’re doing for the people who bought season passes - so many freebies. But at the same time… They’ve taken a few hard left’s lately. And I’m worried about the bad rep they’ve been developing. I hope this doesn’t hurt the company too badly.

1 Like
#52

I did mention that I’m unsure how Xbox handles this, and I also did mention that this is relevant to the new consoles not the old, at least PS4. So at least as far as PS4 is concerned, yes this is a console problem, GBX and 2K have no control over how the system is handled or how DLC is distributed on PSN.

I’m not sure what you mean by guest mode entirely, did you play on the same account with P2 being a guest on that account, or is there some other option on Xbox 360? If so, on PS3 you could do this but still have access to all of your characters, that’s how PS3 players used to transfer gear from mules and power-level.

#53

Microsoft refunded the season pass for you? How recently had you purchased it?

#54

I haven’t tried any split screen on another game that involved dlc, so I can’t disprove what you’re saying on ps4. Challenge accepted. Sorry if I seem hostile, not my intent, especially towards you.
On 360 there was a guest account for online play and stuff. It never saved anything, but on CoD and the like, you had what the player with online had. In games like bl2, you had nothing.

Edit: Evolve, Magicka 2, Gauntlet, Middle Earth SoM. All games where other profiles have been able to use my dlc. All on ps4.

1 Like
#55

Why apologise? I wouldn’t expect you to believe me based on a whim, you don’t know me and you can’t prove this for yourself, you damn well better doubt me :stuck_out_tongue:

Wow, PS really did follow the Xbox example, both with this and with subscriptions. Funny that Sony set the pace, then followed the follower, I never knew Xbox was so unfriendly to split-screeners.

I’m not willing to buy any of these games to test this LOL. I guess I was partly wrong then so I should apologise, but part of the argument still stands though for another topic. This is all observation, I’m trying to figure it out like everyone else but it seems nobody knows who is to blame. Perhaps we should fight the system after all?

Why are consoles so unfriendly to split-screeners nowadays? The success of consoles was founded on the idea that multiple people could play together on the same system on the same screen. I’ve had this argument elsewhere before, but split-screen seems to be a forgotten concept, it’s a big part of the reason why consoles even exist and have done so well for so long. Consoles should be catching up to PC and competing on par, yet the biggest draw to having a console over a PC is failing…

1 Like
#56

I was apologizing for hostility, not disagreeing :stuck_out_tongue: I won’t apologize for my opinion until I’ve been proven wrong. And you hold yourself to a reasonable bar on the forum, so to you in particular I try to be polite.

Each copied the other in some regards. Sony started charging for online, but left several loopholes. It’s not unfriendly! I prefer it. If my girlfriend and I had the same account, we couldn’t be the completionists that we have become. We’d both get bored super quickly without the added challenges. Her more quickly than I, because I hunt everything rapidly while she takes her time. So separate profiles works better. Plus, for a lot of games you can only have one save per profile - which means one of our profiles would be missing a bunch of games that we had played together.

I own all of those games, and dlc of sorts for each one. I went through my library after your last message :stuck_out_tongue: I’m too lazy to take and post pictures and whatnot though.

Split screen costs more in potential income and in development costs. Why make a game split screen and spend hundreds of hours working on that when you can just force them to buy a second copy, therefore helping your bottom line? Can’t remember, didn’t cod get rid of online split screen with one of the last two, wanna say advanced warfare? Bliz didn’t bother with Overwatch. Not that I blame them, the closest they ever did was Diablo. And that was… Problematic, at times. And was also not true split screen, which would be much more difficult than allowing a second room on one screen.

I’m tired. Rambly. Sorry bout dem great white walls of ramble.

#57

Some xbox examples that I can remember off the top of my head. All with only a single player with purchased content. I imagine there’s more examples than these few.

Original xbox allowed split screen games to share dlc content.
I remember playing Halo 2 dlc with multiple players on the same console. This included individual ranks saves I believe.
Dead or Alive games did. But I believe this was more of like an expansion.

Xbox 360
Again Halo with multiple profiles and individual progress saved.
Borderlands allowed multiple profiles with progress saved to access dlc areas. I forget how it handled dlc character classes. Online was limited unless both profiles had xbox live.
Gears of War.
Left 4 dead.
I’m sure there’s more.

It’s really just more of a principal thing. Why even bother to offer split screen if you aren’t going to follow a split screen type model. Where almost always one player has access to the content, and so long as that player is playing all players are able to access it.

#58

Wow, that’s awfully nice of you to say, I’ve been banned a few times so I wouldn’t go that far though haha. Thanks though.

Unfortunately, I don’t find that to be an acceptable reason. If we’re supposed to buy these games, then shouldn’t they cater to our desires? Customer is always right and what not. But now it’s just all about marketing, creating video games has always been a business model but with the potential for such outrageously high profit margins nowadays I think cutting back on costs is a joke and pure laziness, especially with how advanced some of the modern games are. As Marcus would say, capitalism baby. The consumer doesn’t matter anymore, so long as they spend and buy, the gaming market is so vast now that developers can get away with anything because even if a small fraction boycott, the vast majority will still purchase is only to play with their friends.

Haven’t played one since Ghosts, which I was pressured into buying, so I couldn’t tell ya, but I do recall hearing something like this through the grape vine. It right pisses me off to hear such things honestly, the gaming market is heading in a worse direction, with more exposure there seems to be less compatibility, huh.

#59

Yes. July.

#61

Fyi for those interested on a little history that seems to have lead to this situation.

In Borderlands, people could modify saves to cheat, and do all sorts of other shenanigans. To try and prevent cheaters, gbx decided to make the game online only with your saves tied specifically to their servers. This means you can’t mess with your save, also means that your progress will carry over when you log into another console (only works on the same console type you normally play on). This I think this has ultimately backfired, as many people were put off by Battleborn being online only on principle. And there have still been cheaters (aim bots mainly). I don’t expect this to change anytime soon and if you’re looking for a refund, you should be going to the retailer you purchased it from. They get to duke it out with gbx ultimately

What does this ultimately mean? I think it will mean that Borderlands 3 will use the same system. That ties accounts to servers rather than your system and dlc will not be available in split screen.

#62

If bl3 is like that, I won’t buy it. Period. I freaking love those games, but no. Just like I wouldn’t buy battlefield, and I only bought cod for zombies (no dlc). And I’m not the only one.

If people want to cheat in a pve game, LET THEM. Seriously, it’s not that big of a deal. “But they’re breaking the game we worked so hard to make!” But they bought it. It’s theirs. Really, that’s like selling a book and being upset when someone writes in it or tears out pages. It just makes no sense.

This game? Yeah, kinda makes sense. It’s online oriented. But unless they’re going to try that with bl3 (oh god please no) then what the hell is the reasoning?

#63

I can’t believe I’m just finding this out. I bought the game and season pass specifically to play split-screen with my son. He was already disappointed to find out he didn’t get any of the digital deluxe skins, etc, but it never crossed my mind that he wouldn’t be able to play the new story ops without his own season pass. This was based on assumptions (obviously) from first-hand experience with the Handsome Collection (and every other split-screen DLC game I’ve ever played).

Well, there was one exception. One of my favorite games ever on PS4 is Helldivers (a small indie twin-stick shooter with lots of DLC). That was a cross-play, cross-buy, cross-save game, so all status/progress was stored on their servers (like BB). When people discovered that the DLC wasn’t shareable with other split-screen players on PS4, they threw a fit (like here, and just as justifiable). But in that case, Arrowhead quickly made a change to keep their customers happy. They added the ability to share the DLC when the purchasing user was logged into the console:

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/HELLDIVERS/Patch-highlights-for-upcoming-Patch-1-04/m-p/45106772/highlight/true#M5148

So, I guess my point is, just because progress is stored on a server somewhere and is tied to a user account, doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to also share it with split-screen players on the same console. And Arrowhead is a much smaller studio than Gearbox, so it must not have been much work.

@JoeKGBX, have you guys thought of doing something like that?

Really not sure what to do here. I’ve already logged countless hours in this game with my son. We’ve had a blast with the first Ops mission (I guess only because he played in the beta, so he got the first DLC for free?). I don’t want to get a refund (if that was even possible this long after purchase), but split-screen was the reason I bought this. Don’t want to be melodramatic, but I can’t help but feel betrayed here.

3 Likes
Primary PS4 and season pass but no local o-op for DLC?
#64

Well, what happened here?