dlc 6 i promise you wasnt this expensive to make
1 the thing was made entirely from scratched and held back content
aka the missing boss we knew existed for over a year and was a boss you could fight
like 6 mission story with cut story content for a character they threw under the buss because why even develop it for base game
and all the behind the scenes stuff
cheap and by cheap i mean lazy / boring challenges
2 its a pretty short dlc in all aspects
dlc 5-6 have literally no reason to cost more then 5 euros
the dlcs that deserve the cost are dlc 1-2 if you are feeling good dlc 3
but the rest just isnt up to par
other developers can offer more for the same or less money.
Ahhh, I’ve vented on the halo infinite forum alot but the gist of it is the amount of content released and the amount of content that’s behind paywalls, mainly after all the dev press about the most customizable halo, how you can unlock stuff through skill/challenges, etc.
Mainly for me it’s the barren customization system with the macrotransaction store.
Sean W is a youtuber (with one arm!) that plays halo, his most recent videos can pretty well sum up my gripes with the game.
In my experience, outside estimations of cost are woefully inadequate.
Sure, a bunch of stuff already existed to build from (particularly for DLC6). But that doesn’t speak to what cost was saved.
Like, if it’s not worth it for you - cool. I’m not saying you’re wrong for thinking that. It’s completely fine that you don’t find it worth the money.
But I will kinda raise my hand when you say “i promise it wasn’t this expensive to make”. It’s not just making the assets. It’s preserving the game’s min-specs with additional content. It’s handling any technical debt that might have prevented them from including some stuff in the first place (like the event switcher / permanent events). There are a ton of basically invisible things - that you as a customer shouldn’t have to care about - that can affect the cost of development.
All things that can and should be accounted for in the initial stages of development when you make decisions about engine, underlying development options, etc. So I very much understand the point that these types of issues/choices impact development and development options, but I also don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for these choices being poorly-made. I have supervised software developers before and my general experience is that a very small percentage of them think months or years down the line - many decisions tend to be made with the upcoming obstacle in mind. I can’t imagine that gaming software development differs that greatly from business software development.
What I have said above, I find to be true with 99% of software developers. Instant problem first, down-the-line problem later. The issue is that it doesn’t have to be like this, but it almost always is. But the down-the-line problem is sometimes much larger and should be addressed first.
To relate what I was saying to BL3, the game is clearly very, very poorly optimized. That is a decision that was made years ago, and is still negatively impacting BL3 today. There are tons of fundamental decisions that are less impactful, arguably, than optimization choices, but that’s kinda the point. If you made a poor one on something as important as engine/s, maybe other poor choices were made?
To make the final response to what I quoted from you above, so what? What does this bear on the player? Who cares about the why? It exists, other games do the same things better, and nothing else really matters IMO. If Fallout 4 loads faster than your game though, you need to think about your engine and optimizations. Again, I love BL3 - but I feel like with the money involved here, the game should have been tested and vetted more fully. What really happened is that GBX got behind the 8-ball from Aliens Colonial Marines and had tough decisions to make. Just IMO.
And don’t tell me about development costs, BL3 sold 14 MILLION COPIES (per 2K as of October '21, don’t tell me the number is high). Even at $30/copy, $30 x 14,000,000 = $420,000,000. You think that wasn’t enough? You know the dollar number was actually way, way higher than this because this does not include DLC. Or the initial sales prices from the game. Or whatever exclusivity deal was made with Epic. BL3 was a multi-billion dollar game. Don’t give me the “you don’t understand how much it costs” answer.
The rub is in the answer to the question: “What does it cost to make this happen?” That’s always the hardest question and answer as a business owner. Just because the answers to those questions were poorly made in the case of BL3, doesn’t make it right. There is a correct answer to the question of maximizing value for both the developer and consumer. Even if we aren’t smart enough to know it until later.
PS - Sorry I reread my answer above and I realize now it seems “angry” in a way. I don’t intend it that way, I just am really tired of the “you don’t know how hard it is” explanation for mistakes. Everything is hard, it’s ok for that to be the explanation as to why. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “we screwed this up and will do it differently in future.” I apologize, I still want to be friends, I didn’t mean my message to be as confrontational as it might have come across. But I still do think what I said above applies as far as issues with BL3. They were and have continued to maximize its value, including minimizing their development costs
long story short
game was poorly planned out
it made tons of cash anyway
delivered a poor product even later
other folks can deliver better for the same
we deserve better, and my core point stands
dlc 5-6 dont deserve a full dlc price tag
especially since other games in the same class deliver the contents of these dlcs for free
since in general having a arena style addon or challenges simply draws players back if done correctly or serve as a basis for future content to sell
aka, selling dlc 5 should basically give us more maps and more content over time
dlc 6 should get more challenges and more rewards all the time, not just 3 bursts of delayed poorly made content
the free content aka content that should have been in the base game doesnt count
nor does the excuse count that you paid for the whole 2 event maps we got with the season pass
maliwan takedown was desperatly needed for base game release
heck is tiny and 100% reused stuff
cartels was kinda decent but that alone doesnt justify anything
guardian takedown is poorly made
at that point we already got stuff such as dlc 4-6 which on all accounts wasnt worth their price
in general its bad if a 10 euro dlc gives me 3-4hours of boring unfinished content barely any sidequests, or tries to give me back content they more or less took out of the base game just to sell it back to me
Of course it’s abandoned. They got base game + first pass + second pass money. They basically made 3 times the amount of money of any other game studio would make on one of their games. I mean, it was pretty obvious this was the treatment borderlands 3 was going to get after it got released in such a catastrophic state and after they proven they have no idea how to balance the game by releasing mayhem 2.0, which put more than 90% of all guns in the dumpster tier.
If you feel like this is not what you signed for, don’t preorder wonderlands. Or don’t buy it at all. We still have borderlands 2. And borderlands 3 has redux mod which attempts to balance it and fixes a ton of stuff. I suggest you try it out if you burned out of vanilla. I can’t go back to vanilla after playing redux.
I think the guy isn’t happy with the amount of replayability value he got out of a $150+ game, all things considered. Hell, there are games out there that are so long lasting (e.g. diablo 2) that people play them for decades. Expecting 4-5 years from a 150 bucks game isn’t outrageous.
That’s not the only problem. Another huge issue is that the game is still extremely poorly balanced. You have stuff like complex root one shotting absolutely everything on a hustler eraser zane, many things scaling way too much with mayhem to the point that you just one shot everything, perma invincibility (what’s the point if you cannot die?) etc. If they left us a reasonably balanced game with diverse content, I think people wouldn’t complain, but alas.
Also Gorbles, some questions (I hope you’ll answer). Why do you defend gearbox so much? I see you in any criticism thread. Are you their lawyer? Are you actually paid to defend them? Who are you to tell people how much time they should enjoy a game? Why do you think other people will find enough value for their money? Seriously dude, please stop.
(Flying: throwing yourself at the ground and missing)
If there was a Diablo 4 (or whatever the next iteration would be) announced, do you think it would have the same life expectancy and amount of content as Diablo 2? For the same (adjusted for inflation) price? Looking at the way the games industry as a whole is going right now, my personal expectation would be a probable ‘no’ on that.
diablo 3 gets played to this day, and i think that got released 8 ish years ago
and diablo 3 wasnt even that good, they just released content for like what 5 years?
its not unreasonable to think diablo 4 will be build to last a while
(Flying: throwing yourself at the ground and missing)
I find myself not as optimistic, based on the history of more recent efforts in the franchises I mostly play. I’m quite dubious about a number of titles that, previously, I was quite excited about. Of course, it doesn’t help that the studios and developers involved have paused development on the titles people wanted to push out other content that flopped (or never even made it out the door). Or abandoned good games prematurely for whatever daft reason. And I’m not talking about GBX for any of those - it seems the whole industry has gone daft and forgotten the basics.
its fair to say that
cuz its true
the whole industry is currently in the shitter, nothing to sugar coat here.
most games even fking pokemon games… POKEMON GAMES release and need a day 1 patch or they are missing fundamental stuff
its sad, its depressing and it also makes me angry
dont know how all thos fifa and madden fans are doing it,
getting a broken game every single year and still having the negative brain capacity of my shoes to buy it every single time thinking its gonna be better then playing the 1 they bought the year before
and funnily enough
its exactly these specific players of these specific games who are to blame for this trend.
mobile gamers are kinda on the edge with that.
i rly hope that at some point there is a collaps in the industry so we may get decent working games again
There are a couple of problems we both have, here. The first is our respective positions. You’ve supervised software developers in the past, and are basing a number of assumptions on that experience. I’m literally a software developer, and obviously a lot of my perspective, assumptions and bias come from that experience in a similar way.
The second is that neither of us know what’s happening at Gearbox. So, it could be an atrociously-managed trashfire, or it could be a lot of people working their best against inevitable setbacks and failures unrelated to (but impacting on) development.
People often confuse developers with managers (or senior leadership teams in general), which is normally one I do my best to gloss over. Because consumers don’t care about that level of detail. They see Gearbox, Gearbox provides a game. Fair play. But when someone like yourself goes into detail about developers specifically, then I feel it’s fair to separate out “people who work on the game” with “people who make business decisions about said game”. This is (theoretically) important because in a magical world where our discussion here actually changes the status quo at Gearbox, (for example) if firing their development team(s) doesn’t fix their future games, the problem is with management, and vice versa. Especially when team members are hired by managers and higher-ups in the first place.
Development costs are still important because of political words I dislike getting into in forum threads. BL3 was a huge success and made a ton of money. This doesn’t mean that the value of success isn’t based off the original costs. There’s a famous example I like to provide of, a few years back, Apple making record sales for their newest flagship iPhone. However, because they didn’t reach a specific number of sales, stockholders and investors deemed it a failure.
Is that right? I’d say no. But it’s a whole other thread. The basic point is that video games are the same. It doesn’t matter if BL3 is a massive success, because the development budget is only going to see a fraction of it. Which is all I said to @Gadriel. If they wanted to spend five Euros, max, on a DLC pack that contains a bunch of stuff, then that pack won’t get made. That’s just the economics of it.
In my anecdotal experience, I know bad developers. I know good ones. I know excellent ones. The one thing we never seem to have, regardless of how good or bad we are, is the time to develop a solution properly. Every time I’ve seen a developer think months or years ahead, their recommendations are ignored by people higher up than them. And I’m not trying to turn this around on you, or knock you for supervising developers in the past. This all just ties back to our experience with software, and how that then impacts our views on what went wrong with something like BL3 (or any game, really).
When I say “people don’t know how hard it is”, I’m talking about the actual development, the code, and so on. I’m not talking about bad managers, or greedy executives, or games development being a for-profit industry. All of which are very likely to feature in a product like BL3. Some people seem to think I’m here as Randy Pitchford’s personal valet, which couldn’t be further from the truth
I absolutely respect that you want the mistakes made with BL3 to be addressed, or even not happen again. I get the frustration. But I’m just a guy. One software developer, often talking specifically about software development stuff. That’s all I am
I think neither of us have any idea, that’s why I was asking them. You inserting your argument in place of theirs isn’t the answer I was looking for.
I defend bad takes on software development, a lot of the time. I’m not their lawyer, are you their prosecutor? I’d hope not, because you’d be a terrible one with made-up claims like “tell people how much time they should enjoy a game (for)”. That’d get you laughed out of any courtroom.
I’ll post where I like, thanks, rules permitting. If so you, and others, are allowed their negative or critical opinion, I don’t get why it annoys you so much that I have a different one. You don’t see me telling you to stop posting.
I literally said if it wasn’t worth it for you, that’s fine. I respected that you didn’t feel the game was worth it.
I don’t get why you insist on making fictional enemies out of posters you’ve never met.
That like of thinking doesn’t really make sense as they could easily get more money from selling even more SPs while also saving a lot of developing costs on the fact that most of the assets are alredy there.
Issue here is that this is purely because “the games industry” constantly screws up on basic things they already got right multiple decades ago.
But most of the people quit already, so who’s gonna buy the new SPs? A new game is a different flavor that they can hype much more and obviously more people are going to buy a new game rather than a dlc or season pass. Plus, the new game is made on the same engine.
Alright mate, I was merely telling you to stop posting because you make yourself look pathetic. It was in your best interest, if you wish.
I have no idea where this discussion derailed to ‘software development’. I don’t think anyone (that I see) blames the coders at gearbox. If anything, it’s definitely the management fault. I am too a software developer and I know when a manager is trying to push silly deadlines and cutting on features / bug fixes. Borderlands 3 definitely seems like that. Also, extremely bad design decisions, such as releasing mayhem 2.0, when mayhem 1.0 was more than enough and very balanced compared to what we got in mayhem 2.0.
And mind you, even the devs made a few mistakes because there’s still bugs in the game that haven’t been addressed so far and stuff that doesn’t work as it should. An example being child projectiles of guns (or child projectiles resulting from eraser) ‘double dipping’ into bonuses such as splash damage and splash damage radius, which leads to certain guns (complex root) dealing absolutely insane amounts of damage. Child projectiles shouldn’t inherit character bonuses, that’s a relatively ‘simple’ fix (I don’t know how spaghetti their code is) that they should do.
There are games out there that offer so much more for much less, how could they do it and borderlands 3 failed so miserably? This is a broad question because I have to go right now, but you get the idea. Look at diablo 2, path of exile, warframe etc.
The state of the industry is going absolutely nowhere, barring indie. Developers are getting gobbled up by larger and larger companies that are doing so because the industry is worth more and more every year. They’re not in it for the labour of love.
Obviously the same can be said about all other creative outputs (i.e. Disney, Tencent).
That said, unpatched out of the gate fails go back decades.
That’s a lot of assumptions that ignore the reality of things (like for example the lack of content / transparency being a factor). It would be easy to get a lot of players back if they actually addressed some of the major criticisms (and with that I don’t just mean balancing issues).