Top
180°

Borderlands 3 Is “Much Bigger Than Borderlands 2, Has A Ton of Content” – Gearbox

Coming back from a hiatus of seven years (or five, if you count the Pre-Sequel), Borderlands 3 is a game that gamers all have high hopes from. And at least as far as the amount of content it will offer to players even at launch is concerned, it’s looking like it’s going to live up to those lofty expectations. Gearbox Software have spoken about how the main campaign is 30-35 hours long – and that’s if you’ve only done a few side missions the entire time – so it’s clear that there will be a lot to dive into in the looter shooter.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Snakeeater25684d ago

Will borderland 3 Will have a story this time or its still dont matter

Ps : make possible to kill claptrap

684d ago Replies(1)
Cmv38684d ago

All 3 of them so far have had a story. Tps and 2 have great stories imo. Tps was just on the short side.

criticalkare684d ago

Uhh what? You never played previous Borderlands?

pleasuretokill684d ago

Borderlands 3 is being released on EPIC, a platform with scummy practices that I will not support. Wake me up when it's on Steam.

DarXyde684d ago

I'm not well informed about these scummy practices I hear about (not a PC gamer). Do you mean the exclusivity deals? If so, I believe Epic mentioned something about ending those if Steam was willing to reduce the overhead they take from developers to host titles on their platform.

Is there anything else? I'm genuinely curious to know where to start in learning about this matter.

pleasuretokill684d ago (Edited 684d ago )

Epic is paying off 3rd party developers to only release on their inferior-in-every-way platform because they can't just make a better platform. They SAY that they will be cheaper but, only a few games have been cheaper and they have gone back on a few price drops... Basically, I want to buy games where I wish to buy them from. I don't worry about what companies make money wise. I worry about what I want for my cash and then I vote that way with that money. I care about a companies bank account exactly as much as they care about mine. My thought process is completely selfish when it comes to my money. I want what I want and that's it. You either do as I wish or you don't get my cash. That simple. I have a backlog of over 550 games. I don't need to buy any game. When it's released on the platform of my choosing, I will buy it. Not until then. That simple.

DarXyde684d ago

pleasuretokill,

Okay, fair enough. I do personally care about the wellbeing of companies involved since that impacts their project budgets and whether or not they can self publish - which, as we have seen, does affect creative freedom of the development process; I notice that when a game is developed by a solid developer but published by a company like Activision, it tends to be problematic.

That said, nothing wrong with wanting freedom to choose where to buy from. As a personal interpretation, I don't really see the significance of a launcher war, but as you've mentioned, freedom to choose and I can respect that. I like to support developers for a job well done and I can't say I'm particularly selfish with my money so much as I don't support egregious business practices.

Thanks for the info, mate.

Wolffenblitz683d ago

Here's something that I found made a lot of sense after the second game was poached from Steam and people got upset because what they were PROMISED was taken away. It's long, but I think it covers everything.

Grunt from Kotaku.com.au made good points: "Its not the Steam monopoly thing. They are the dominant player, to be sure, but they arent the only one. And they are dominant because they give the customer what they want, not by denying others the chance.

At the moment, my launchers include Steam, GoG, Origin, Uplay, Blizzard, , Bethesda, and now Epic. I've missed a couple, and it doesnt cover things like NC Soft. Steam has the bulk of my games, but each of the others has anything from 1 to a dozen that I play, or played.

Trying to remember whats on each gets increasingly hard, to the point I have several games where I have two installs, or even two accounts, because I've simply seen it on Steam, bought it, and installed it. I think I have Shadowrun three times...

So, theres convenience. As for the physical shops comparison, personally I dont. I have JB Hifi one level above EB, and on the same level as Target. They are all in the same location, so theres no travel. Its convenient. I dont go to Target much, so its really just two stores that I can shuffle between in 20 seconds.

Out of all that, I have choice. If I dont like EB prices I can go up and look at JB. I dont like that, I have other choices, like online. Even though the real choice is whether I buy it at JB today, or tomorrow, theres still a choice.

Exclusiveness takes that choice away. Completely. It hides behind a timeframe of 6 or 12 months, but in reality its taken away. You either have to buy that fresh game from them or buyu a year old game. How is that competition?

Steam never took choice away. You could still go and buy a game physically, and you could still go to another online platform, such as GoG, and buy there. Its never been locked away for any other reason than publisher choice. That IS competition at work.

This isnt about competition. If it was, the games would be on both platforms at the middle of this, and Epic would be competing. Thats kind of what competition means - competing. And they could do so easily by differentiating them from the opposition.

Instead, they've bought the ball, locked out the best player, and only invited the cool kids to play. Again, not competition. Its elitism and something society has been trying to get rid of for decades.

Remember the movie Avatar? I hope you do, its the biggest movie of all time. Remember its push for 3D, and how amazing it looked? When it came out on blu ray, they had a choice. And their choice was terrible. They partnered up with a TV manufactuer, and the ONLY way to get a 3D copy was to buy one of those TV's. Or wait until they changed their minds, or pirate.

At a time when they were trying to get 3D going, they locked away the highest profile option to something so limited to be pointless. To me that played a large part in why 3D never got traction - the biggest potential selling point couldnt become the Must Have reason.

Exclusivity killed competition.

Epic can work. But how its going about it is pissing off enough of its customer base that its basically running on Hard Difficulty. They've put barriers in front of themselves while trying to take on the near monopoly Steam has. And in a way thats reminiscent of various anti-trust cases thrown against Microsoft over the years."

DarXyde683d ago

Wolffenblitz,

Thanks for that. That's really helpful. I have gained a lot more perspective on the matter, though I still have a hard time blaming Epic since developers and publishers have to be on board with this in order for these deals to pass. I'm not sure I can justify blaming Epic for making an appealing offer to publishers - ultimately, they are the ones who agree to provide Epic with the content first. I'm no fan of timed exclusive deals but it makes sense to me if they wish to embrace them because, as is common in business, an appealing offer was made and the parties involved both benefit considerably.

I'm not sure how good Epic is about sales and such, but I do see the issue with locking out competition in this regard since one marketplace controls the entirety of pricing. Altogether, I'm torn with regard to this practice. I believe it is easy to make a case for and against it based on the information provided.

Much appreciated input.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 683d ago
CP_Company684d ago

it sounds like it is a time to buy a Playstation for you.

JackBNimble684d ago

As much as I want borderlands 3 I don't think I can support any dev's or publishers who have supported Epic with their anti-consumerism.
It's to bad Epic just couldn't play fair .

684d ago Replies(1)
684d ago