Borderlands [PC]

[Soggy_Popcorn]

It is an actual PC game. "Port" implies that we created the game from the ground up to run on consoles and then decided later to messily make it run on PC. If anything, Borderlands is a PC game that we made run on the consoles.

All three skews were developed at the same time and the PC version was probably the one version that got the most play and testing from the developers. All the menus have mouse support, etc. The PC version of this game is as solid as other PC-only shooters.

"Port" is a term that doesn't have much meaning anymore, especially with UE3 games.

We like you around here and all but that's just a teeny bit disingenuous. Consol-ish elements are all over the place on PC games, including UE3, considering it was pretty much designed with next-gen (at the time) consoles in mind. There's a quote from Epic to that effect.

Really, just go pick up any random PC game now that's not from Stardock or to a lesser extent Valve, and you are 90% guaranteed to find consoley ported elements.

Oh, and:

Headsets here.


BTW I'm not really found of it (actually, not at all), but the first DLC has been announced.
http://worthplaying.com/article/2009/10/15/news/69399/

Bastards. D:

 

[toniglandyl]

by "console port", we usually have in mind gameplay/graphic limitations.
compare FEAR (made for PC exclusively and then ported on xbox) and then FEAR 2 (3 versions made at the same time), and you see what a "port" is : most requiring graphics are not there, shadows are more than limited, gameplay-wise, the game is easier and helps the user waay too much. (slow-mo makes the enemies brighter, grenades have a yellow trail so you see them...) There was even the fact that the game resolution could only be at a 16:9 ratio ! (for HD TVs)
most of the problems are not because of the engine, but because of the devs who are lazy or simply don't realize that the PC has already years of gaming and that we want to use what we have, and not feel crippled cause it had console hardware limitation or controller-limited movement/button assignement . Piracy on PC is an issue because most people believe that said game is not worth the money. A collegue of mine pirates wii and x360 games and can play on the net. so where's the anti-piracy explanaition now ?

So that's whay I mean by port. it can happen with UE3 games because it's developper's fault mostly (I heard that rainbow six vegas felt like a port, but I've never played that).
in UT3, you don't feel the console-port in the game (not talking about menu...), and the consoles had their own weapon selection/buttons and 20% slower gameplay. The PC felt intact. (IMO)

now for Borderlands, I don't know. I've never played it. I'll just trust you, TWTW, that this game is not a port and that the PC version will feel like a PC game without additionnal patching.

oh and "I am disapoint" for the paying DLC. seems that zombie island has been made not for the players to enjoy, but to gain additional money from those who already paid for the full game.

 

[DarQraven]

Announcing DLC before the game is even out is just shameless.
What it literally says is: "here is what could have been in the game. Instead, we're gonna make you pay extra for it".

Please pass this memo on to the PR people at gearbox.

 

[shoptroll]

Announcing DLC before the game is even out is just shameless.
What it literally says is: "here is what could have been in the game. Instead, we're gonna make you pay extra for it".

Please pass this memo on to the PR people at gearbox.

I don't have a problem with it. Blizzard's expansion packs are full of stuff that didn't make it into the game at first, they just waited about 3-6 months to tell everyone they wanted more money

Didn't Bioware just recently announce they have a year's worth of DLC for Dragon's Age in the pipeline?

 

[Capt.Toilet]

I said it before and I will say it again. I miss last generation. Didn't have to worry about being nickle and dimed to death on something that should have been included. I say bah

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

We like you around here and all but that's just a teeny bit disingenuous. Consol-ish elements are all over the place on PC games, including UE3, considering it was pretty much designed with next-gen (at the time) consoles in mind. There's a quote from Epic to that effect.

Really, just go pick up any random PC game now that's not from Stardock or to a lesser extent Valve, and you are 90% guaranteed to find consoley ported elements.

I guess my main point is, just because a game is multi-platform at launch doesn't mean one version or another was "ported".

 

[toniglandyl]

I guess my main point is, just because a game is multi-platform at launch doesn't mean one version or another was "ported".

it's just VERY often the case

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

Announcing DLC before the game is even out is just shameless.
What it literally says is: "here is what could have been in the game. Instead, we're gonna make you pay extra for it".

Please pass this memo on to the PR people at gearbox.

You're wrong actually. None of this DLC content had been created in time to make it into the full game. This is stuff a small team started working on after the full game had passed the certification process because we knew we wanted to support the game with DLC. There was no way we could have put it in the box without delaying the game to next year. Shoot, this new content wasn't even conceived of in time. We knew we wanted to do DLC, but we didn't know what it would be yet.

It's not shameless. It's letting your potential customers and fans know that the game will be supported after launch with extended content.

 

[DarQraven]

I'm not saying all of it should have been in the game, I'm saying this is the idea it gives customers. Especially if there are already plot details in the announcement. Since this is in fact what has happened too many times before already, people come to expect such practices.

When I read up on a game that's close to launch and already there is mention of DLC, my first thought is "cash cow". The sims effect. That's how simple it is.

At least hold back on announcing further details until the game has been out for a while, and keep it to a simple "there will be DLC".

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

it's just VERY often the case

It was more often the case with last gen games than it is now if I were to guess.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Saying "port" as if it is a bad thing is dumb. As usual, it depends on the quality. Most of the time it's bugs or just bad quality control that makes games "consolified" or "bad ports", not the fact that they started as console games.

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

by "console port", we usually have in mind gameplay/graphic limitations.

In Borderlands case, the PC version is actually graphically superior. It also controls as well as a decent PC shooter.

Piracy on PC is an issue because most people believe that said game is not worth the money. A collegue of mine pirates wii and x360 games and can play on the net. so where's the anti-piracy explanaition now ?

Piracy on PC is rampant because it's easy. Piracy on consoles does happen but it's not nearly as bad because it's much harder to do. It easier to slow down piracy on a console through firmware updates and patches, as well as online checks for multiplayer. Often, console piracy requires hardware mods that the vast majority of console gamers will never attempt, if they even know about them at all. If console piracy were as easy as PC piracy, it would probably be just as bad.

oh and "I am disapoint" for the paying DLC. seems that zombie island has been made not for the players to enjoy, but to gain additional money from those who already paid for the full game.

If we didn't want players to enjoy it we would have never made it. We want to support the game with added content after launch for those who want it. It's no different that paying a few bucks for additional Rock Band songs, CoD4 map-packs, or new areas in Fallout3.

 

[shoptroll]

I said it before and I will say it again. I miss last generation. Didn't have to worry about being nickle and dimed to death on something that should have been included. I say bah

I have a paper I wrote for college in reaction to the unveiling of Live's microtransaction system that I should revisit to see if my expectations actually came true.

When I read up on a game that's close to launch and already there is mention of DLC, my first thought is "cash cow". The sims effect. That's how simple it is.

Conversely, I heard it and thought "oh cool, if I like this game there's more of it for me to play when I get bored. Plus, I can further support the developer. Neat." $10 for new quests, zones, weapons isn't exactly a lot of money considering how some games will charge $2 or more for single items. So in my mind it's a mini-expansion instead of nickle + dime strategy. Yeah it's not as nice as Epic and Valve giving us free maps and such, but Gearbox is in a different financial situation as a contract-driven developer. Epic probably relies on engine licenses for most of their revenue while Valve has Source and Steam.

Hmmm...

I suspect I've been brainwashed because I know I've done that with a lot of games including board games and such lately.

 

[Sjosz]

I don't have a problem with it. Blizzard's expansion packs are full of stuff that didn't make it into the game at first, they just waited about 3-6 months to tell everyone they wanted more money

Didn't Bioware just recently announce they have a year's worth of DLC for Dragon's Age in the pipeline?

2 years' actually. You'd think people would be happy when there's a plan in place for supporting your game.

 

[shoptroll]

2 years' actually. You'd think people would be happy when there's a plan in place for supporting your game.

They won't because there's money involved. Look at the tempest in a teapot that is L4D/L4D2.

 

[dragonfliet]

Am I alone in enjoying DLC? Besides the silly, stupid things that I'm not interested (ie: horse armor), they act as mini expansion packs. $10 for an extra campaign or island is great. I can pick and choose as I please what I want to buy and sometimes I'll spend less, because I'm uninterested (the zombie pack for borderlands doesn't particularly thrill me. Not because it doesn't look cool, but because l4d pretty much satisfies my zombie quota) or sometimes more. I can live with that.

Sure, there are times when companies are really nickle and diming their customers (map packs spring to mind for Halo/GoW/Killzone 2--not all of them, mind you, but they can bet a bit ridiculous, at times.), but there are plenty of things that are really, really worth it, imo.

~Jason

 

[q_mi_4_3]

It's still not a good thing for companies to announce updates before the title is acutally released. When they do updates after the game is out for a while, then it shows they want to keep on supporting it. When they do updates before the game is out, then its shows they planned for you to pay them more money.

Even if the cost is acceptable, the motive behind it is just not respectable.

 

[Sjosz]

It's still not a good thing for companies to announce updates before the title is acutally released. When they do updates after the game is out for a while, then it shows they want to keep on supporting it. When they do updates before the game is out, then its shows they planned for you to pay them more money.

Even if the cost is acceptable, the motive behind it is just not respectable.

Yes, because the motive is clearly different depending on whether you announce before or after release. It's a purely psychological thing.

 

[ambershee]

I said it before and I will say it again. I miss last generation. Didn't have to worry about being nickle and dimed to death on something that should have been included. I say bah

Don't worry, Blizzard and Activision are making it better for everyone, by making you pay for 3rd party mods!

 

[SlayerDragon]

How terrible! People want to get paid for their work. What a bunch of goddamned cry babies.