GBX has been sold to Embracer Publishing

Borderlands 3 Borderlands 3 General Discussion
#60

It would be my opinion that Randy probably doesn’t know about any of the gripes we have with the game. I doubt that anyone is informing him that FL4K’s 4th skill tree is broken, or that some people are having issues with trophies on PS5, or that the HUD is broken for splitscreen.

He’s the CEO, and aside from the occasional play of the game, when I don’t think these issues would be likely to present themselves, I would imagine that his time is taken up with CEO business.

Bugs and faults would be the responsibility of other managers. So I would say that it won’t really matter if he stays as head after the merger/acquisition. CEO isn’t the sort of role that would be involved ‘under the hood/bonnet’ of the game.

3 Likes
#61

I would put forth (strictly from a gamer’s perspective, but one who spent 20+ years in the IT service industry) that a large portion of the business of CEO’s of gaming companies are the state of the games from the players’ perspectives (in other words, Customer Satisfaction). If not, then they (the CEO’s) are out of touch with their customer bases (a bad situation for any industry). And if those to whom the CEO’s have delegated the front end management of staying in touch with the customers are not communicating effectively (or are not being allowed to communicate effectively) with the CEO with regards to issues/topics that are important to those customers, then that is still on the CEO’s head in terms of establishing an effective customer satisfaction reporting system and/or customer service escalation path for problems that allows the CEO’s to keep their finger on the pulse of issues and trends.

I do acknowledge that the nitty-gritty, nuts & bolts of “How do we fix this technical issue?” or “Which piece of code should we work on to correct balance issues with Mayhem 2.0?” are not the kind of discussions that CEO’s would be having. However, the fact that there are technical issues, game play issues, narrative issues and QOL issues and the metrics around the impact that these issues are having with the franchise’s community are exactly the kinds of topics that CEO’s would want to keep abreast of.

Should/would each and every complaint and/or observation/idea be funneled up to the CEO? Of course not. But reports of these issues might pass by their desks, depending on the severity level of the issue at hand, the number of customers impacted and the length of time it is taking to resolve it. A single complaint about Mayhem 2.0 would most likely not make it past the initial help desk. But a report showing thousands of end-users griping about Mayhem 2.0 might make it as far as the CEO, especially if the report shows that people are still upset long after the first complaints were logged and that there has been a downward trend of active users that correlates with the initial launch. Then the CEO might sift through a few handfuls of actual end-user posts to get a feel for what is going on.

So my two cents regarding BL3: If Randy doesn’t know about any of the gripes the players are having with the game then either a) those particular issues are actually not significant enough in the aggregate across the totality of the user base in any objectively measurable way for him to hear about it or b) the issues are severe enough but there is a breakdown in either the design or the execution of the communication/escalation system at GBX. But I disagree with the general principle that the business of a CEO of a gaming company would never include reviewing end-user gripes.

Sorry for the long post. My old IT customer service sensibilities were engaged and the compulsion to respond was too much to ignore. :grin:

4 Likes
#62

Thing is, how much is he taking notice of this forum? I would imagine that GBX has a lot of player data coming in and that would influence their executive decisions more than gripes from a few people on a forum? They sold millions of copies of this game and I would suspect that we, on this forum, don’t accurately reflect the majority of the player base.

3 Likes
#63

If the opinions of those on this forum do not accurately reflect the vast majority of the player base, then “we” would fall under “a)”. Unless someone can produce reports that show otherwise, I would have to concur.

That does not mean we can’t and shouldn’t express our views. If no one ever complains, then gaming companies would never learn anything about how their games are being received. What they do with the information is hard to guess. I have seen some posts that suggest these threads are being watched and ideas are making it into production (I forget who mentioned that).

As to whether or not Randy himself ever peruses these forums, that is certainly up for debate. It could be he has a secret handle and interjects from time to time without any of us knowing. Or it could be that he has never looked at a single topic or post. Either way, all we can do is continue forward in civil discourse while we wait for the next bit of news or release of product.

4 Likes
#64

Metro, Darksiders, kingdoms of amalur - bloody good games. Heard good things about remnant and the hunt: showdown aswell and i think bloodlines 2 were a big reveal for many.

Quite the collection indeed.

2 Likes
#65

If he doesn’t, he’s not doing his job. He is the CEO of an entertainment software company. Part of his job description is being in touch with his company’s player base. If what you have said is correct, then that’s part of the problem here.

I wouldn’t at all make that assumption. Just because he was good at founding essentially a small indie studio that has grown to a multi-billion dollar company, does not mean he has the skill set to lead the billion-dollar company. But I understand your point that if he could do the first, you are assuming he would be capable of the second. In my business experience, however, that is not always - or even just 50% of the time - actually true.

All I am saying is that you shouldn’t necessarily take for granted that just because someone founded and is at the helm of their company, that they are a good business leader and manager. Many entrepreneurs are great at starting up businesses, because they have good ideas and the belief in themselves to create something amazing, but once they create the thing, it grows wildly and out of their ability and skill set to manage. Running a small, 10 man shop is not the same thing as running a multi-national corporation.

3 Likes
#66

But as I said, we few who gripe on here may not be indicative of the player base so may not even register with him. He’ll have senior managers reporting stuff to him, I doubt he reads the forums himself. Chain of command and all that…

1 Like
#67

Pretty sure he’s on here, complaining about Ava, like everyone else. :rofl: :rofl:

4 Likes
#68

For what it’s worth, I found this in my recomendations today:

2 Likes
#69

There has been a lot of speculation here and other places about this transaction. To me, the best and most likely explanation I’ve seen is the one put forth by @LeeHarveyOswald in another thread I have linked below. Seems as likely as any scenario, IMO.

1 Like
#70

I don’t think people really understands what this deal means for Borderlands.

The Borderlands franchise IS DEAD NOW.

That’s what this deal means.

Borderlands is the only significant IP that Gearbox has that Embracer CANNOT PUBLISH. 2K owns the publishing rights, and why on earth would Embracer want to dump a bunch of money into a game franchise where 2K is going to make the lion’s share of the profits?

Pritchard and Gearbox are going to walk away from this franchise now. The business has been sold, the deal has been done, there is no reason at all for them to continue putting any significant money or resources working on a franchise that is contracted to 2K when they could be making new games for their new owners instead. I can assure you those new owners are absolutely expecting Gearbox to produce games they can publish, and that’s not going to happen if they’re putting a lot of resources into Borderlands. Gearbox will fulfill their existing contractual obligations to 2K and once that’s done that cord will be cut.

So enjoy what remains of Season 2 DLC for those who bought it. Do not be surprised if it’s the last Borderlands content ever produced. Gearbox is off to new and exciting IPs under new ownership with a new publisher.

2 Likes
#71

BTW, if you want an excellent real world analogy of where Borderlands is right now, it’s essentially in the same place as Spider Man movies.

You see, Marvel owns the Spider Man character, but Sony owns the publishing rights to Spider Man movies specifically. When Disney bought out Marvel they were still required to honor that Sony ownership of the Spider Man publishing license.

Now, in Disney’s case, Spider Man is an essential part of the MCU, so they were forced to make a deal with the Devil and pay Sony what they want to produce and release Spider Man movies for them.

The question here is, is Borderlands so essential in Embracers plans that they would also do a deal with the Devil and pay 2K what they want so 2K would continue to publish Borderlands games for them? Or, alternatively, offer 2K whatever they want to release Gearbox from that publishing contract?

Considering Pritchard’s enthusiasm for new IPs under this new agreement, I would say the odds of that are about the same as your odds of getting an 8 round per shot perfect Molten Monarch with an STNL damage annointment on your first try.

Borderlands is done. Finished. Fin.

2 Likes
#72

I like your optimism :wink:

3 Likes
#73

@moustangman I read your posts, but I am unclear on why the Borderlands franchise (or GBX) would be in any different position with respect to 2K than it already was. 2K is already paying GBX a fixed amount plus incentives or profit sharing to develop Borderlands - at least I am reasonably certain that is how development deals work. If that is incorrect, someone will correct me, I’m sure. The publisher fronts the development costs (the proportion fronted corresponds inversely to the amount of profit sharing, so the less profit sharing and incentives, the more up front, and vice versa).

2K and GBX still have every incentive to produce a profitable and commercially successful product. I don’t think that’s changed. Assuming that Embracer and 2K still want to make money off of the Borderlands franchise, that is.

But perhaps you’re making another point that I missed or didn’t understand.

#74

Because Gearbox is now owned by a publisher, and that publisher is NOT 2K. Why would a publisher want to give money to another publisher? It’s simple finances.

If Publisher gets X amount from a sale, and developer gets Y amount, why would Embracer want 2K to take X when Embracer owned Gearbox could produce a new IP instead in which case Embracer makes X+Y?

If you could make a game and sell it through me and make 10 Million, or make a slightly different game under a new name and new IP and sell it yourself and make $30 Million, which would you do?

Your resources are fixed. You can invest your time, money, and assets into either making more 2K published games or making your own self published games. It’s not hard to figure out what’s going to be done. Embracer making more games for 2K is about as likely as seeing Bethesda continuing to make more Playstation games after their current contracts are fulfilled.

2 Likes
#75

That’s true, but they will still be making money under GBX’s current business model. The sale valuation took that into account, I expect (they paid less for it than they might have if the 2K deal didn’t exist, I would guess). And when the term of the 2K/GBX publishing deal is up, Embracer would have the option to start publishing Borderlands itself - if they have the money to do that, which I assume they do.

EDIT: I’m not arguing with you, just enjoying the speculative discussion. You might be correct with what you’re saying.

1 Like
#76

This could also add merit to @LeeHarveyOswald’s entry of Embracer separating Borderlands from the rest of their titles.

1 Like
#77

@vCarpeDiemv That’s exactly what I was thinking. I think what he says in his post I linked above, responds directly to the problem/issue @moustangman indicated. That’s part of the reason I was trying to get @moustangman to tease out his thought process.

I really do think @LeeHarveyOswald might be correct with what they have said in the Bordercast news post. It makes sense in many ways.

It also explains Battleborn and Aliens: CM - Randy personally wanted/supported them. Those were huge money losers.

2 Likes
#78

I don’t see how this will matter at all. There is zero chance BL3 will ever be fixed up regardless of who owns Gearbox, and when BL4 is released, which it will be sooner rather than later, does anyone really have any expectation that it will be anything other than more half finished hot trash with endless DLC spilling out of it? Regardless of the influence of any publisher, do you really have any realistic expectation BL4 could be WORSE than this game, or any realistic expectation that anything will be made better? Just saying, I would expect “more of the same” to be the order of the day.

2 Likes
#79

GBX is also a publisher, and apparently the deal says GBX can continue to act in that role for those titles. I see no reason from the face of it why GBX’s deal with 2K would be any different. If that deal included provisions for future BL content, that would have been part of the due diligence for the Embracer deal.

I don’t know the actual details of the deal any more than anyone else, but I’m not sure I’d be so quick to jump to conclusions on the fate of a major money-making franchise just like that.

9 Likes