So, "Borderlands 4" is out. That's a big deal to some, but not to me.
The series was never something I had great interest in, and it didn't
seem to be getting any better with each iteration. Supposedly this
fourth* game is better than the third, but that's not a particularly
high bar as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I'm not really here to talk
about the game itself, which I'm unlikely to play any time soon (or
possibly ever).
Instead, I'd rather observe the kerfuffle Take Two and Gearbox have
gotten themselves into, and how it was all so avoidable. It's not a
big kerfuffle** but it is having an impact on their release-day sales
Whether it will actually amount to anything is debatable, but I'm not
a fan of Randy Pitchford, so anything that pours sand in his corn
flakes is okay by me. ;-)
See, the problem all stems from the Take Two EULA that is attached to
the game. It's not a new EULA; it's actually one that was last revised
a few months ago. It made a few waves back then too; it's a bit over
broad, technically allowing Take Two to allow kernel-level monitors
that, if you agreed to it, allowed them to basically monitor and track
user personal data. This was done all in the name of fighting online
cheaters and I'll --perhaps unwisely-- give Take Two the benefit of
the doubt that their /intent/ was as narrow-focused as they claim.
Maybe they never intended to vacuum up and resell everybody's data...
but they sure as heck made sure to give them the rights to do so in
the legal boilerplate.
That's why it's not without some small amusement that I see this EULA
problem rear up again with the release of "Borderlands 4". Previously,
the upset about the EULA didn't have much affect; the games that it
pertained to were years old, and the customers making a fuss were
small enough in number that they couldn't rock the needle much
compared to the already massive sales (and positive user reviews) of
those games. But with the newly released "Borderlands 4", the ratio
between happy gamers and upset gamers is skewed, and the latter's
unhappiness is definitely affecting sales (not to mention overall
review score).
And, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox
and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA.
We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if
the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of
legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But
of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at
any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to.
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
In the long run, none of this will matter of course. I'm sure that the
fuss about the EULA will abate, sales of the game will skyrocket, and
the tiny percentage of people who are aware of the problem (and
actively complaining about it) will amount to a rounding error in Take
Two's ledgers. But in the short run, it _is_ affecting their sales...
and it could have all been avoided if Take Two -like all corporations-
wasn't acting like a self-entitled psychopathic asshole.
Oh, also, the game apparently needs >100GB to install. That's apropos
of nothing; I just know a number of people here are discouraged by how
big games are getting in terms of storage requirements, so I thought
I'd throw that out there. ;-)
* well, ninth for the franchise and fifth for the series***, but who's counting ;-)--
** Kerfuffle. Kerfuffle. I really like that word.
*** not including DLC or special editions that collect/repackage
existing releases
So, "Borderlands 4" is out. That's a big deal to some, but not to me.
The series was never something I had great interest in, and it didn't
seem to be getting any better with each iteration. Supposedly this
fourth* game is better than the third, but that's not a particularly
high bar as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I'm not really here to talk
about the game itself, which I'm unlikely to play any time soon (or
possibly ever).
Instead, I'd rather observe the kerfuffle Take Two and Gearbox have
gotten themselves into, and how it was all so avoidable. It's not a
big kerfuffle** but it is having an impact on their release-day sales
Whether it will actually amount to anything is debatable, but I'm not
a fan of Randy Pitchford, so anything that pours sand in his corn
flakes is okay by me. ;-)
See, the problem all stems from the Take Two EULA that is attached to
the game. It's not a new EULA; it's actually one that was last revised
a few months ago. It made a few waves back then too; it's a bit over
broad, technically allowing Take Two to allow kernel-level monitors
that, if you agreed to it, allowed them to basically monitor and track
user personal data. This was done all in the name of fighting online
cheaters and I'll --perhaps unwisely-- give Take Two the benefit of
the doubt that their /intent/ was as narrow-focused as they claim.
Maybe they never intended to vacuum up and resell everybody's data...
but they sure as heck made sure to give them the rights to do so in
the legal boilerplate.
That's why it's not without some small amusement that I see this EULA
problem rear up again with the release of "Borderlands 4". Previously,
the upset about the EULA didn't have much affect; the games that it
pertained to were years old, and the customers making a fuss were
small enough in number that they couldn't rock the needle much
compared to the already massive sales (and positive user reviews) of
those games. But with the newly released "Borderlands 4", the ratio
between happy gamers and upset gamers is skewed, and the latter's
unhappiness is definitely affecting sales (not to mention overall
review score).
And, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox
and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA.
We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if
the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of
legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But
of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at
any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to.
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
In the long run, none of this will matter of course. I'm sure that the
fuss about the EULA will abate, sales of the game will skyrocket, and
the tiny percentage of people who are aware of the problem (and
actively complaining about it) will amount to a rounding error in Take
Two's ledgers. But in the short run, it _is_ affecting their sales...
and it could have all been avoided if Take Two -like all corporations-
wasn't acting like a self-entitled psychopathic asshole.
Oh, also, the game apparently needs >100GB to install.
That's apropos
of nothing; I just know a number of people here are discouraged by how
big games are getting in terms of storage requirements, so I thought
I'd throw that out there. ;-)
* well, ninth for the franchise and fifth for the series***, but who's >counting ;-)
** Kerfuffle. Kerfuffle. I really like that word.
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out. That's a big deal to some, but not to me.
The series was never something I had great interest in, and it didn't
seem to be getting any better with each iteration. Supposedly this
fourth* game is better than the third, but that's not a particularly
high bar as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I'm not really here to talk
about the game itself, which I'm unlikely to play any time soon (or >>possibly ever).
I like the Borderland games (except for the pre-sequel,) but this is
going to be a wait-for-a-sale game. $90 CDN before tax, fuck that!
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out. That's a big deal to some, but not to me.
The series was never something I had great interest in, and it didn't
seem to be getting any better with each iteration. Supposedly this
fourth* game is better than the third, but that's not a particularly
high bar as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I'm not really here to talk
about the game itself, which I'm unlikely to play any time soon (or
possibly ever).
I like the Borderland games (except for the pre-sequel,) but this is
going to be a wait-for-a-sale game. $90 CDN before tax, fuck that!
Instead, I'd rather observe the kerfuffle Take Two and Gearbox have
gotten themselves into, and how it was all so avoidable. It's not a
big kerfuffle** but it is having an impact on their release-day sales
Whether it will actually amount to anything is debatable, but I'm not
a fan of Randy Pitchford, so anything that pours sand in his corn
flakes is okay by me. ;-)
See, the problem all stems from the Take Two EULA that is attached to
the game. It's not a new EULA; it's actually one that was last revised
a few months ago. It made a few waves back then too; it's a bit over
broad, technically allowing Take Two to allow kernel-level monitors
that, if you agreed to it, allowed them to basically monitor and track
user personal data. This was done all in the name of fighting online
cheaters and I'll --perhaps unwisely-- give Take Two the benefit of
the doubt that their /intent/ was as narrow-focused as they claim.
Maybe they never intended to vacuum up and resell everybody's data...
but they sure as heck made sure to give them the rights to do so in
the legal boilerplate.
That's why it's not without some small amusement that I see this EULA
problem rear up again with the release of "Borderlands 4". Previously,
the upset about the EULA didn't have much affect; the games that it
pertained to were years old, and the customers making a fuss were
small enough in number that they couldn't rock the needle much
compared to the already massive sales (and positive user reviews) of
those games. But with the newly released "Borderlands 4", the ratio
between happy gamers and upset gamers is skewed, and the latter's
unhappiness is definitely affecting sales (not to mention overall
review score).
And, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox
and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA.
We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if
the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of
legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But
of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at
any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to.
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
Like a lot of things in EULAs, especially their lists of things they
aren't responsible, no company actually wants to test it in court.
They want you to assume that it's all legal and a forgone conclusion
that you'd lose in court if you challenged it.
But that's not a forgone conclusion at all and they don't want to test
it in court.
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
Oh, also, the game apparently needs >100GB to install.
Slightly concerning.
On 9/13/2025 5:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:<snip>
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
Which is why there is a clause in the EULA saying you have to go thru >arbitration. ;)And, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox
and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA.
We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if
the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of
legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But
of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at
any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to.
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
Like a lot of things in EULAs, especially their lists of things they
aren't responsible, no company actually wants to test it in court.
They want you to assume that it's all legal and a forgone conclusion
that you'd lose in court if you challenged it.
But that's not a forgone conclusion at all and they don't want to test
it in court.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:56:59 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out. That's a big deal to some, but not to me.
The series was never something I had great interest in, and it didn't >>>seem to be getting any better with each iteration. Supposedly this >>>fourth* game is better than the third, but that's not a particularly
high bar as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I'm not really here to talk >>>about the game itself, which I'm unlikely to play any time soon (or >>>possibly ever).
I like the Borderland games (except for the pre-sequel,) but this is
going to be a wait-for-a-sale game. $90 CDN before tax, fuck that!
To be fair, Pitchford _did_ warn us that this was going to be a
premium priced game. He initially wanted it to sell for $80USD (~$110
CAD, ~�70 EU) but had to back down when people told him to fuck off
with that nonsense.
I fully expect to pay the same price for "Borderlands 4" as I did for >Borderlands Pre-Sequel and 3 (and Tiny Tinas Wonderlands, and Tales
from the Borderlands, and all the DLC)... which is to say, $0* because
I got them all as freebies or included as extra games in bundles I
bought for other reasons.
As far as I'm concerned, the gameplay of the main "Borderlands" series
bores me. It's a first-person looter-shooter; it's Diablo in space
except you see through the protagonist's eyes and it has a much weaker
story. It's ten gajillion guns boast is meaningless to me because >99.9999999999999999999% are worthless or dupicates of the few guns
actually worth owning. This makes the looting part of the game
incredibly unsatisfying to me. And I find the shooting bits are at
pretty average too. It's great that some people love this series, but
in my eyes it's a one-note novelty game that barely engaged me enough
to finish the first title, and I've had little interest in the series
since then.
So the outrageous price doesn't bother me much. I was never going to
pay even half that for the game.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:56:59 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
Oh, also, the game apparently needs >100GB to install.
Slightly concerning.
Not really related to Borderlands in specific, but I read an article*
a week or two back that said that one of the benefits of switching to >ray-tracing for your rendering is that it can result in smaller
storage footprints because you aren't shipping all that baked-in
lighting. Honestly, I can't imagine that would actually net you THAT
much in the way of savings (and the article wasn't very specific in
terms of numbers), but with games getting ever larger, any little bit
helps.
* no article link this time. I don't remember where I read it.
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading theKirkfuffle :)
* well, ninth for the franchise and fifth for the series***, but who's
counting ;-)
** Kerfuffle. Kerfuffle. I really like that word.
I have a Captain in Star Trek Online named Kerfuffle.
Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 9/13/2025 5:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:<snip>
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
Which is why there is a clause in the EULA saying you have to go thruAnd, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox
and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA.
We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if >>>> the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of
legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But
of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at
any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to.
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
Like a lot of things in EULAs, especially their lists of things they
aren't responsible, no company actually wants to test it in court.
They want you to assume that it's all legal and a forgone conclusion
that you'd lose in court if you challenged it.
But that's not a forgone conclusion at all and they don't want to test
it in court.
arbitration. ;)
Ahh, but since the EULA has not been proved to be legally binding,
including that clause, it's off to court they go.
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:56:59 -0400, Xocyll <[email protected]> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
Oh, also, the game apparently needs >100GB to install.
Slightly concerning.
Not really related to Borderlands in specific, but I read an article*
a week or two back that said that one of the benefits of switching to >>ray-tracing for your rendering is that it can result in smaller
storage footprints because you aren't shipping all that baked-in
lighting. Honestly, I can't imagine that would actually net you THAT
much in the way of savings (and the article wasn't very specific in
terms of numbers), but with games getting ever larger, any little bit >>helps.
On 9/14/2025 6:23 PM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> looked up from reading theOnly until the customer goes through arbitration, loses and then comes
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 9/13/2025 5:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:<snip>
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the >>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
Which is why there is a clause in the EULA saying you have to go thruAnd, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox >>>>> and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA. >>>>> We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if >>>>> the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of >>>>> legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But >>>>> of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at >>>>> any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to.
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
Like a lot of things in EULAs, especially their lists of things they
aren't responsible, no company actually wants to test it in court.
They want you to assume that it's all legal and a forgone conclusion
that you'd lose in court if you challenged it.
But that's not a forgone conclusion at all and they don't want to test >>>> it in court.
arbitration. ;)
Ahh, but since the EULA has not been proved to be legally binding,
including that clause, it's off to court they go.
up with enough money to take it to court.
Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> wrote at 00:28 this Tuesday (GMT):
On 9/14/2025 6:23 PM, Xocyll wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> looked up from reading theOnly until the customer goes through arbitration, loses and then comes
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On 9/13/2025 5:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:<snip>
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the >>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>> say:
Which is why there is a clause in the EULA saying you have to go thruAnd, of course, all this could have been avoided. "Oh," says Gearbox >>>>>> and Take Two, "Don't hold us accountable to the language in the EULA. >>>>>> We'd NEVER do everything it allows us to do." They make it sound as if >>>>>> the EULA is something they themselves have no control over; a bit of >>>>>> legal jargon that has them at its mercy as much as the customers. But >>>>>> of course, that's untrue. They have the ability to modify the EULA at >>>>>> any time; to make it a lot less expansive. They just choose not to. >>>>>>
So Take Two and Gearbox asking us to trust them seems a bit
ridiculous. You want trust? Act trustworthy!
Like a lot of things in EULAs, especially their lists of things they >>>>> aren't responsible, no company actually wants to test it in court.
They want you to assume that it's all legal and a forgone conclusion >>>>> that you'd lose in court if you challenged it.
But that's not a forgone conclusion at all and they don't want to test >>>>> it in court.
arbitration. ;)
Ahh, but since the EULA has not been proved to be legally binding,
including that clause, it's off to court they go.
up with enough money to take it to court.
So the whole thing is a massive catch-22?
On 9/13/2025 5:56 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> looked up from reading the
Kirkfuffle :)* well, ninth for the franchise and fifth for the series***, but who's
counting ;-)
** Kerfuffle. Kerfuffle. I really like that word.
I have a Captain in Star Trek Online named Kerfuffle.
There was an SF story I was reading where one of the characters playing
an advanced tech LARP of Star Trek renamed himself Captain Picirk >(amalgamation of Picard and Kirk.) or was Kirpic?
So, "Borderlands 4" is out.
BORDERLANDS 4 has apparently been suffering from stuttering issues and seriously underperforms on powerful hardware compared to other games
(many of which look significantly more impressive visually).
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:14:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<[email protected]> wrote:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out.
From what I've seen and read, it's mostly a shit show of bad
performance even on honking PCs. So to buy or not.. maybe in the
future when its $10-15 and has been better optimized, but definitely
not now.
Rin Stowleigh <[email protected]> wrote at 23:23 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:14:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<[email protected]> wrote:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out.
From what I've seen and read, it's mostly a shit show of bad
performance even on honking PCs. So to buy or not.. maybe in the
future when its $10-15 and has been better optimized, but definitely
not now.
Don't you love it when companies don't bother to optimize a single
thing because "new computers can handle it" :D
Rin Stowleigh <[email protected]> wrote at 23:23 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:14:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson >><[email protected]> wrote:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out.
From what I've seen and read, it's mostly a shit show of bad
performance even on honking PCs. So to buy or not.. maybe in the
future when its $10-15 and has been better optimized, but definitely
not now.
Don't you love it when companies don't bother to optimize a single
thing because "new computers can handle it" :D
Scene: Inside Game Company Boardroom
"Okay, we've got our latest money sucking game out now and the PR dept
has done their job so the peons are buying it. Once we've gotten enough >sales we can continue the work, finish the game and actually come up
with something that is usually playable and works."
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:58:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
Scene: Inside Game Company Boardroom
"Okay, we've got our latest money sucking game out now and the PR dept
has done their job so the peons are buying it. Once we've gotten enough >>sales we can continue the work, finish the game and actually come up
with something that is usually playable and works."
Or sometimes, not even that much.
"Then again: we got already their money; why fix it? We'll
just say, 'oops, our bad', make some vague promises about
correcting the problems that we have no intent on keeping,
then get to work on hyping the next game where we'll assure
them all the performance issues will be resolved. The brand
is so popular, I'm sure they'll buy it."
And if you're Randy Pitchford, you don't even have to say the 'oops'
bit.
"You're playing the game wrong, plus, there aren't any bugs,
and only a few people are reporting them, and anyway, if
you don't have a computer powerful enough, you don't DESERVE
to play our games. But the DLC will be great, so be sure to
buy the season pass, 'cause we're putting all our efforts
into the expansions now!" ;-)
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:40:07 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rin Stowleigh <[email protected]> wrote at 23:23 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:14:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson >>><[email protected]> wrote:
So, "Borderlands 4" is out.
From what I've seen and read, it's mostly a shit show of bad
performance even on honking PCs. So to buy or not.. maybe in the
future when its $10-15 and has been better optimized, but definitely
not now.
Don't you love it when companies don't bother to optimize a single
thing because "new computers can handle it" :D
They can do whatever they want, and I'll vote with my wallet.
I think these days a lot of these companies are counting on frame
generation to provide numbers that look good enough, and hoping
players don't notice the input lag. Some don't, but I do.
If there's one thing people care about, its input lag. At least
from what I've seen, a game feeling sluggish is unforgivable,
especially for competitive games.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 20:50:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 ><[email protected]> wrote:
If there's one thing people care about, its input lag. At least
from what I've seen, a game feeling sluggish is unforgivable,
especially for competitive games.
Much more ---for me, at least-- is uneven framerate. I can _deal_ with
a 20fps framerate (or even lower) so long as it remains consistent.
But having the framerate suddenly drop from 60 to 30 (and then back to
45 and down to 20 and up to 90) makes a game unplayable.
(While not actually related to input lag, the issue is similar since
you can't consistently judge when your commands are going to take
effect. Input lag itself isn't terrible either... if it is consistent.
If you need to press JUMP a tenth of a second before the jump, or a >half-second, your brain can handle it... so long as it doesn't keep >changing.)
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:07:21 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:
As far as games go, frame generation itself always introduces some
amount of latency. An LCD monitor will have a certain amount of
latency. Without even factoring things like input peripherals, the
various system settings (and custom tweaks like deferred procedure
call latency), just those two sources of latency can work against each
other to diminish the feeling of immediate control.
On 9/21/2025 9:01 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:07:21 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<[email protected]> wrote:
As far as games go, frame generation itself always introduces some
amount of latency. An LCD monitor will have a certain amount of
latency. Without even factoring things like input peripherals, the
various system settings (and custom tweaks like deferred procedure
call latency), just those two sources of latency can work against each
other to diminish the feeling of immediate control.
CRTs apparently have 0 latency. One more advantage of the big heavy old >boxes.
Anyway, the video is called "Borderlands 4 has a Randy Pitchford
Problem" and it basically says -a bit more concisely and elegantly
than me- the same thing: Randy Pitchford's defensive responses to "Borderlands 4" are not helping his case. In a normal world, the best
thing he could do is shut-the-fuck-up. Unfortuantely, he operates in
this world, where being a loud blowhard seems to be the path to
success for too many people.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:44:50 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:58:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler >><[email protected]> wrote:
Scene: Inside Game Company Boardroom
"Okay, we've got our latest money sucking game out now and the PR dept >>>has done their job so the peons are buying it. Once we've gotten enough >>>sales we can continue the work, finish the game and actually come up >>>with something that is usually playable and works."
Or sometimes, not even that much.
"Then again: we got already their money; why fix it? We'll
just say, 'oops, our bad', make some vague promises about
correcting the problems that we have no intent on keeping,
then get to work on hyping the next game where we'll assure
them all the performance issues will be resolved. The brand
is so popular, I'm sure they'll buy it."
And if you're Randy Pitchford, you don't even have to say the 'oops'
bit.
"You're playing the game wrong, plus, there aren't any bugs,
and only a few people are reporting them, and anyway, if
you don't have a computer powerful enough, you don't DESERVE
to play our games. But the DLC will be great, so be sure to
buy the season pass, 'cause we're putting all our efforts
into the expansions now!" ;-)
For somebody else's take, here's a video:
https://youtu.be/JjijJGRwSSw?t=122
(I skipped ahead for you; the first two minutes of the game are just a
recap of what "Borderlands 4" is)
Anyway, the video is called "Borderlands 4 has a Randy Pitchford
Problem" and it basically says -a bit more concisely and elegantly
than me- the same thing: Randy Pitchford's defensive responses to >"Borderlands 4" are not helping his case. In a normal world, the best
thing he could do is shut-the-fuck-up. Unfortuantely, he operates in
this world, where being a loud blowhard seems to be the path to
success for too many people.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,071 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 101:02:33 |
| Calls: | 13,747 |
| Files: | 186,976 |
| D/L today: |
295 files (114M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,422,956 |