So, in case you hadn’t heard, Borderlands 2 is coming out tomorrow. Basically, expect the gaming press to be nothing but Borderlands 2 for about the next week or so. We’ll be running an initial impressions tomorrow and a full review later this week, ourselves.
In short, it’s about to be enormously successful and a real feather in the cap of Gearbox Software, not to mention a major money-maker for 2K and probably the game that revives the currently struggling boxed games retail market. It’s so successful that you can literally download it for the PS3 day and date.
I’m happy for Gearbox and I’m looking forward to the game. I’m just a little worried about what happens next.
Gearbox and 2K are already enthusiastically firing up the DLC train: Anybody who didn’t preorder the game will have to pay $10 for a new character class, plus $10 to $15 each for DLC packs. Or you could give them $30 for the season pass.
This is unfortunately nothing new. Any game with odds of selling a lot of copies already has DLC plans in place, whether it’s dribs and drabs of new stuff every week or big packs every few months. Still, it’s annoying to hear that if I want what amounts to the best possible game, I’m expected to pre-order and pay $90. I’ll settle, thanks.
The first Borderlands sold quite well, and credit has to be given to 2K and Gearbox for marketing it carefully. You’ve had dozens of chances to play this game for pretty much dirt cheap for months, with DLC included, on pretty much any platform.
As a result, the second one is going to be a monster. Keep in mind that 2K’s preorder records include games like Grand Theft Auto IV and BioShock, and this game has blown past both of those franchises with more preorders coming in every single day. This will handily outsell the first one, likely to the tune of eight or nine million copies.
Which is officially “Let’s Milk This Cow For Every Penny” territory.
2K has a different philosophy than Activision, but they like money just like any other company and they’re happy to meddle. Much of the reports of trouble at Irrational over Bioshock Infinite were actually about 2K making demands that involve squeezing the eagle until it screams. Seriously, does anybody think multiplayer in the BioShock franchise was the idea of anybody actually developing the game?
It’s true that Borderlands is not a deep, complex franchise, but even dumb games can be ruined by greed. It’s something I hope everybody involved keeps in mind when the planning for Borderlands 3 fires up.
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/569/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/06/5RYSE_E3_Cin1_02-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/06/WiiU_MarioKart8_scrn01_E3_1_610x343-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/06/E3-2013-Microsoft-Xbox-One-Killer-Instinct-007-1280x800-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/06/callofdutydog-150x150.jpg)
Getting a really good gaming PC and just using Steam continues to seem more and more appealing to me. I’ll happily wait a few months for the price to drop on most games.
Yep. In 2 months it will be $20 cheaper.
When discussing Borderlands on my guidl forum I mentioned that I never wanted to give ti a chance because the box art finger gun guy was way too much Bro for me. So the box art for 2 features twice the finger guns for more Bro action.
It’s not that bro of a game, ironically. It’s more agreeably stupid than anything else.
Gears of War = GRRR BRO-FEST!!!
Borderlands = Holy shit look at all these guns that Midget with a shotgun dropped after I set him on fire with my +3 Sniper Rifle of Burning!
Honestly, I was underwhelmed with Borderlands and never bought any of the DLC. I only really owned it for about a two weeks. I’m not too broken up about it being co-opted to the HOLY FUCKNUGGETS MULTIPLAYER DEATHBALL crowd.
Honestly i thought the guy with a mohawk was like 7 feet tall this entire time. i have no idea how i could have missed the fact that he’s basically a little person with guns. which is better really, if that’s true.
I do not believe for a second that this game was “co-opted” for the “multiplayer crowd” and that’s a really weird argument to make in the first place.
I played the first Borderlands and two of the dlc packs and while I enjoyed it I also saw it’s flaws in regards to the story and the game design. Much like Assassin’s Creed it wasn’t a perfect game by any means but had a ton of potential. Potential that has been thoroughly expanded upon with this sequel. I’ve looked at the skill trees, I’ve read the dev’s takes on how they wanted to improve it and I really cant wait to play this. Especially with my friends.
The ability to have my friends drop in and out for co-op is icing on this ridiculous loot cake and it’s incredibly unfair to knock this game for some kind of perceived kowtowing to the “Multiplayer Crowd”. Multiplayer has nothing to with this game. It’s called Co-Op.
I enjoy multiplayer on certain games and understand how crappy it is when it gets shoe-horned into games that have no business doing that because it’s entirely peripheral to the central concept of the game (looking at you Bio-Shock, Mass Effect, and Dead Space). But Borderlands was developed from the ground up with Co-Op play in mind, not Competitive Multiplayer. Those are two very different things and to bag on this game for it is just dumb.
It’s not about multiplayer so much as it is about “farting one out every year.” Even Call of Duty, a franchise I kind of loathe, would be substantially better if they just took a damn year off.
I don’t see your argument Dan. First off, Bioshock was MADE by 2K. Borderlands isn’t. It’s only published. And as much as people want to believe that publishers have full control over video games that they DON’T create, it’s just pessimism. Look at all the franchises that have gone down the crapper. Look at Battlefield(which admittedly hasn’t seen the kind of crap other games have). The game developer that makes Battlefield, DICE, is OWNED by EA. Bioware. Owned by EA. Call of Duty was created by developers owned by Activision.
Then look at Gearbox. They’re not owned by anyone. They’re not subsidiary. They’re just simply Gearbox. 2K does have a say, but not as much as they would have if Gearbox was apart of their company.
As for DLC, I don’t see what the problem is with planning DLC for the future. Take a look at the Borderlands DLC. General Knoxx was an absolute steal at 800 microsoft points. You could just count that as an expansion pack. All the other DLCs were also 800 microsoft points which is still a good deal even if they weren’t as big as General Knoxx. Now look at Borderlands 2 DLC that we know of. The Mechromancer is free if you preorder(which by the way, there’s no extra payment) and they’re already planning at least 4 DLCs after in which they’re letting you save 10 dollars if you want to pay 30 bucks now on a DLC pass. All the DLCs are gonna be 800 microsoft points each. That’s 40 bucks. By the way, this DLC hasn’t even been made yet so you can’t really say it’s the same as leaving content off the game just to get more money on it later. I just don’t see your argument here. Gearbox, 2k, and the Borderlands franchise don’t follow any pattern that Call of Duty set. And to be honest with you, assuming that they’re going to pump a Borderlands game out every year is beyond pessimistic and cynical. It’s downright laughably pathetic.
On that point I completely agree. Annualizing any game pretty much removes any hope of innovation and I hate what that business strategy has done to franchises like Madden and COD. I am a big believer in letting the devs do their thing. Case in point: Bioshock Infinite. When ever I see a game get pushed back for more dev time, my first thought is “Oh cool, they have more time to make it better.” Unfortunately my second thought is “shit I hope the publisher isn’t fucking the studio over.”
Randy Pitchford would NEVER make Borderlands 2 like Call of Duty. I’ve been watching lots of interviews with him and he is not the kind of guy who makes games for money like Activision and Treyarch. He said even though people didn’t really like the new Duke Nukem and it didn’t sell that well that he would’ve still made it because it was important to him. He’s not going to drive Gearbox’s bread and butter into the ground with multiple sequels year after year like CoD does.
DLC is a whole ‘nother mess but for me it boils down to this:
Day-1 DLC / locked content already on the disc? I FUCKING HATE YOU.
examples: Batman Arkham City, Gears of War 3, Mass Effect 3
Pre-planned dlc designed to expand and add on to the established game world and/or storylines at a later point? FUCK YES.
examples: Borderlands, Battlefield 3, Skyrim
(and Dan most of my first comment was directed @ Churchwhiskey sorry if that wasn’t clear)
Ok, maybe I was a little quick on the draw – I’ll give you that. However, let me rephrase what I was originally saying: Borderlands 1′s marketing was mostly predicated on this 4-player RPG foundation that seemed really cool, but unless you have 3 friends with the same system and the same game and can all be on at the same time, you’ll either be a stranger dropping into someone else’s game or have your game dropped into by a stranger. Maybe I’m weird, and I was being hyperbolic in regards to the deathballs comment (I probably hate CoD just a little bit more than Dan), but story is big with me. So for an RPG to have a thing where if somebody can play the last level before they play the third was a major letdown for the first game, imho. I honestly couldn’t get invested in any sort of narrative, and you and I can chalk this up to us expecting different things from the playing experience. And for anyone trying to play Borderlands single-player, forget about it: the game world (to the designer’s credit) was hugely expansive, and playing the game alone was a uniquely lonely experience.
I just think games shouldn’t cater exclusively to multiplayer crowds, but again, I’m probably just the asshole in this equation and what I’ve said won’t really track.
Fair enough. CoD heartbreak is definitely a thing now, and I actually agree with you on the first Borderlands being a very lonely experience solo. But just from the time I’ve had so far with the new game, they have balanced that issue quite well. Most games are exponentially improved when you can share that experience with friends, (Portal 2 for example can do both) that being said, I’ve now put about 4 hours into Borderlands 2 and they have absolutely tightened the narrative up in that regard. And once you’ve played through the story once, the issue with jumping around story wise in co-op becomes moot and the game becomes all about looting and monster hunting. Two things this game has in ridiculous abundance. Along with hilarious writing. Catch a riiiiide!
The only point I’d like to add about the DLC is this. Pitchford has already said that the 4 DLC’s planned for Borderlands will all be General Knoxx sized content packs. Anyone that’s played General Knoxx knows that it was massive, easily adding dozens of hours of game play.
Source: [www.slashgear.com]
Who cares? No one is forced to buy the downloadable content. And I don’t see how this is like CoD at all. (Which I actually still enjoy) There are two games! Most games have downloadable content.
Grand Theft Auto 4 had 2 massives DLCs. Saints Row had 3, Halo Reach has 4, Red Dead Redemption 4 (5?), Fallout 3 had 4, Skyrim is going on its 2nd. I don’t get the DLC hate. If I enjoy a game I mostly likely will want more out of it so I buy the DLC. If I didn’t like the game, oh well, they won’t be getting my money.
If you have played the Borderlands DLC you will have noticed especially with the Knox DLC that a TON of new content was added instead of something that is just hashed together. It added new class items, end game, and overall fun quests that challenged the player instead of just joking around one shotting everything. Gearbox is the shiny example of what a gaming company should be they make games that are fun and not just for a week.