I like how you completely missed the point of the thread.
Nobody is debating what the data shows, but rather why it shows. People don’t care to level other characters because it takes too long to level them, specifically within repeated content (ie the campaign) we had in BL2, which is what their quoted data is based on. I raised this exact same point in an older thread.
Personally, I am relieved that I no longer have to play through TVHM/UVHM to get to max level this time around (thanks to mayhem mode scaling) and GBX is of course free to do what they want with their IP, but the reason they gave as to why there won’t be new Vault Hunters added to BL3 was a cop-out that should be obvious to anyone.
@OP: It still kind of blows my mind that a basic feature such as being able to skip cutscenes isn’t in the game, as this would speed things up quite a lot, but I would hazard to guess it has something to do with how GBX handles multiplayer sessions.
I’m missing the point? In the original post, these are the first two paragraphs after the OP says “lemme explain:”
If we are debating “why”, this isn’t the reason and I wrote why his logic is flawed.
He (and you) then go on to make the three-playthroughs-to-get-max-level is part of the problem. It may be the problem for you, but prove it’s the problem for everyone else.
If 80%+ of PC players never played Tina Tina (DLC4), do you think it’s because they needed three pkaythroughs to do it? Because you can play that DLC (and all of the other ones) on NORMAL mode.
If two-thirds of PC players DIDNT. FIINISH. THE. GAME even once, do you think it was because of two additional playthroughs they didn’t do?
The vast majority of Borderlands players play one character, and most don’t even finish the game. So to get those players back, to spend money on new content, should Gearbox focus on more missions for that one character or make a brand new character?
You may not like the reason GBX offers for their decision, but it’s certainly rational and not a cop-out.
They could always do what they did with the Commander Lilith DLC and allow you to begin a new character from level 30 ready to jump right into TVHM. I only played 3 of the BL2 characters until that hit. I now have one of each.
You are right, but as the level cap increases, unless they introduce new skill trees, build diversity will become less and less. All Mozes will begin to look the same as they approach level 80…
I want more VHs too. I guess that I can’t understand why it is so hard to get both things…
I don’t think the fact that many people who started playing the game didn’t finish it, proves the point. That data can be interpreted many ways, but it doesn’t show how many continuous players there are, only the number who gave up on the game part way. Gearbox stated that players pick one character and “keep playing” with them, so those who stop playing fairly early may or may not be included in their decision-making process. It’s impossible to tell, unless they announce it.
To be fair, even those who give up half-way through the main story might have continued playing, IF they had been able to swap characters without starting again from scratch. I understand that this is how gearbox have made all the Borderland games (except BL2 with the Commander Lilith DLC), so it seems unlikely they will change it, but I think a lot of players would be more likely to swap characters if they did.
You are thinking too hard. Their is no data saying people don’t play multiple characters. They just didn’t want to make more vault hunters, and had to find a convenient “data point” to justify why.
This is the part that many of us were missing, that is crucial to your point.
Gearbox should/does want to get those players back, but once those players leave, is there any indication that they will come back? I don’t even know that answer for other games… can any game bring players back with DLC?
Thinking through it, once I’ve put a game down, I don’t think that I’ve ever gone back.
This has been debated to a relatively infinite extent; the basic facts are that Gearbox has the statistics, and knows who bought what with BL2. They know what makes them the most money.
No amount of individual anecdotes about having multiple Vault Hunters is going to change that. It’s not questionable logic, it’s very basic economics. Make what people want to buy. People didn’t want to buy the additional VHs, and / or didn’t want to play them anywhere near as much as the one that they played with primarily.
I have three playthroughs on the go, before somebody tries the whole “well just because you’re happy with one” (which has happened before). I’m not going to riot if Gearbox add more, and wish the best of luck to people who want to see more VHs, but I’m very tired of the “what if the company with all the sales metrics are reading their own sales data wrong” takes.
@Gorbles, This is all that a thread, like this one, can be…
Personally, I’d like to see more VHs. However, of course, you are right that the company will (and should) use it’s data to make the best decision for itself.
I don’t view this as a logical conversation, some in the community are sad that there won’t be more VHs in BL3… this is purely an emotional point.
I have 7 vault hunters with plans for 8. I want 2 set ups of each so there is no moving gear around and respecing . I would not mind adding 1 or 2 more vault hunters to that. I think I may be a weird case though. I played the original (BL1) and BL3 only. I never could get into BL2 or BLPS.
I don’t know about additional VH to choose from, but it would be nice if after completing all content with one character, it allowed you to start new characters at max level on TVHM.
OP may or may not be wrong about how his data correlates to the issue, but he is absolutely right about the slog of going through the game multiple times with one character, just to max them out.
Some people, my self included, like to experience everything the game has to offer, but its super tedious and time consuming leveling up every character to max
Gbx would absolutely see a change in their stats about players sticking to a single vault hunter if there was a Diablo style adventure mode. Keeping the experience of fully realizing another vault hunter behind a dozen hours of story mission that is already hard to slog through necessarily limits their data. This isn’t an opinion, it’s basic data science.
They either don’t realize this and are making misinformed decisions, or do realize this, and are misleading their audience because of other reasons related to the R&D on new VHs or something. I’m more inclined to assume the former, considering.
Super brilliant take. There is data…what do you think Shift accounts are for? You aren’t so gullible as to believe Shift exists just to deliver you cool Golden Keys, are you?
Logic is logic, no matter where or how it is contrived. A brick is still a brick wether your building a structure on grass or sand, it still supports the structure of logic.
You may not personally agree with or like the concept but I stand by the fact that being a major time sink is a likely deterrent for people not wanting to level multiple vault huhters. That simply does make sense.
I don’t personally mind the time sink(so much), while I am sure there are people who can’t stand it. However, to be fair, I had 6 characters in BL2, all leveled to 80/op10. That means that I completed the exact same story line and sat thru the same dialogue/cutscenes at least 18 times(6 characters x 3 playthru each/6x3=18).
All I’m suggesting is that if that time sink was not an obstruction players would be more likely to have more than one character.
That seems like a logical train of thought to me.
Maybe not all tradional cutscenes per se but Im referring to all the cumulative amounts of time where we are not actively playing but sitting thru dialogue, story sequences, etc.
*Which I personally don’t mind but was just making the argument that a lot of players do(hence multiple topics on it). That could be reasonably assumed that the excessive time commitment required to experience an individual character at endgame could likely be a barrier that prohibits players from leveling multiple characters and just sticking with one.
You supporting my argument here by admitting that skippable cutscenes are now worthless too you because you likely already have all the vault hunters leveled(or played multiple times thru on own character, either way)!
All I’m saying is that if it there wasn’t a time barrier or it was easier to experience different vault hunters at endgame then players that normally wouldn’t, would now likely play more than one vault hunter. Is that really such a stretch of the imagination?
Well to be fair the players that didn’t even finish the game aren’t super relevant to any discussion on how resources are spent on Borderlands. Since they, ya know, didn’t even finish the game, they are simply null statistics.
We should instead look at the rest of the statistics you posted and focus on the people that do “go hard” on Borderlands and what they enjoy.
*And in all fairness, I can’t %100 say it is new characters, however all the dlc characters thus far have ultimatly been amazing contributions.
And this not directed at you, just a general statement, we as players shouldn’t lower our expectations to simply “hoping” they do bug fixes and performance optimizations as a reason to not expect additional features… After all, a certain quality should be expected in the first place and guaranteed with our initial purchase.
I suppose the fact that some folks are dismissing additional features(such as new vault hunters/additional content) in lieu of wanting basic performance and bugs fixed does not bode well, but I for one have faith in Gearbox.
2 Likes
sammantixbb
(I guess no one goes here anymore)
#40
That’s the thing I was trying to point out though. Are they null statistics?
At large we have one big question to answer first: Who is Gearbox seeing when they’re “seeing” players? Because that angle determines so many things.
Is this about getting asses in the seats or keeping them there? Who is their consumer? The empty Pick up sale? Or the person who will play forever? Does the difference between these two even matter?
Jay-Z’s album a few years ago went gold/platinum/whatever because Samsung bought that many copies. Those are, in essence, empty pick up sales. There’s no telling if that many people listened to and liked it. The sales just happened.
As such, we have to ask first who the decisions are being made about. The view of the Topic Creator (I think I am currently replying to you. But for clarity sake) is that The People Who Decisions Should Be Based On are the Lifers. That why look at stats for people who pump and dump the game, when you can sell characters to your Lifers that will keep them engaged.
But on the other side is the It’s All About The Dollar view that says that it doesn’t matter what the Lifers want, because we’re all just a few bucks anyway. And if not enough Pump And Dumps will put out the money for another character, then that’s wasted time and effort.
And both of those arguments have merit. Which is why this is so messy. Because it’s not about whether they’re gonna make characters or not…the argument is about “Who is Gearbox listening to?” and the Lifers don’t want the answer to be “well. Not you all”
That said, my tenant of discussion is this: Every statement should be taken in good faith, unless reason dictates otherwise. And never ascribe to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity.
