They are objectively less popular with the newer stuff.
Tiny Tina’s Wonderland is at 25% for recent reviews, 70% overall. That’s not glowing. And with their new ELUA a lot of people are planning to boycott. I don’t think Borderlands has the pull it once did.
Tiny Tina is a spin-off, and I doubt the EULA changes will result in much more than the Modern Warfare 2 boycott. Borderlands 3 still sold multiple millions of copies before it even had its first discount, and over 15 million copies total. It was still in high enough demand after an Epic exclusivity period to get hundreds of thousands of concurrent players when it eventually launched on Steam. It’s one of very few multi-billion dollar franchises in video games.
Also Tiny Tina was actually a fuckin blast to play through. It doesn’t drag like some of the main games do, the humor is actually fun because you’re basically playing a game within a game and it works as far as D&D stuff goes imo.
Also I actually liked being able to customize my character for once. I don’t know about the other voices, but I actually really liked the douchey/cocky voice I ended up going with. There are some fun lines for different quests and such.
That’s a fair call on Tiny Tina being a spin off, but with it and the movie kinda tarnishing the name it seems like a bit of an uphill battle.
3 did well, but the game before and after it didn’t. Add in people having less money to throw at this stuff and it being “a real fans” price, possible exclusive deals, etc. I just think it’s putting up it’s own road blocks constantly. The franchise isn’t hot and it’s fresh off the Borderlands movie joke.
IMO They should fire this wide and fast, keep the price low and sell it everywhere, earn back that trust and good will. Make people fall in love with BL again.
Fresh off the Borderlands movie, they sold tons of their Pandora collection, and concurrent players shot up. It may not have been the movie they wanted it to be, but it mostly achieved the same goal.
And with their new ELUA a lot of people are planning to boycott.
I hope so, but i was expecting more people to boycott Nintendo, and yet the switch 2 was the fastest selling console of all time. I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone does the old “I’m sure it’s fine if I get a copy”
I think people on the internet vastly overestimate the support these boycott movements actually have. For every person here or wherever else saying they’re not buying a switch, there’s 10,000 parents buying one for their kids, or people that just wanna play mario kart with their friends.
And typically the boycotters weren’t even the sort of people who were buying a switch 2 to begin with. Maybe there’s a subsection of them that will result in some loss of sales but it would be in the fraction of a percent. There’s no surprise to me when gamer boycotts fail.
With that said, the sales were unexpectedly high. Maybe people trying to get ahead of potential future tariffs were the reason. I thought cost of living was fucked and nobody could afford anything.
I’ll be waiting for the inevitable OLED refresh anyway.
There’s also just a substantial number of people that were just astroturfers, I think.
There’s been a LOT of crazy attacks on the switch 2 to try to ‘justify’ a boycott. I think my two favorite was that the gamechat button noise when you hit is actually saying saying a slur, or maybe that the rumble turns off after a while not to protect your hands from the rumble (which has been found to be bad for you), but because Nintendo cheaped out on a rumble motor that overheated too easily.
The switch 2 joycons don’t have a rumble motor. Like, it’s a whole thing they’re super proud of, because it’s so precise they just use the rumble really fast to play music instead of having a speaker.
Honestly, the whole idea of trying to boycott nintendo has pretty much always been over astroturfed bullshit, or just outright bullshit.
Nintendo gives us so many legitimate reasons to not want to give them money. Who do you think would be behind astroturfing? To my knowledge, it doesn’t usually come in the form of being against one company but in being against a piece of legislation or regulation. People on Lemmy are probably just predisposed to being willing to go against the mainstream when it starts turning shit, or else we’d still be on reddit.
They put their money towards suing the shit out of emulation projects and removing ROM sites.
This is compounded by the fact that they won’t even sell you those ROMs anymore. They only make them available to rent in perpetuity. People are rightly skeptical of a future where Microsoft only makes their games available via Game Pass rather than it just being an economical option, but Nintendo is already doing the thing that people are afraid of.
They’re the last holdout that won’t put their games on PC in an era where console exclusivity doesn’t make sense anymore. There’s no reason to play Zelda at 20 FPS and 360p when, at the time of release, my PC was already quite capable of running the game at acceptable resolutions and frame rates. This is just willfully selling people an inferior product when they have the ability to deliver a better one. Then they have the gall to charge their customers, who already paid $70, even more for an upgrade to finally run those games at acceptable performance on their next console. And in case you think this is me justifying piracy, I didn’t pirate the game; I didn’t play it at all.
I’m a competitive fighting game player, and the way they fight against their own fans for trying to compete in Smash Bros. is atrocious.
They sue and go after emulation projects/ROM sites for modern content just as much as Microsoft and Sony do, MS/Sony just get a pass for some reason. Probably because people try to pirate current-gen content less for them, but they do the exact same thing every time it happens. Nintendo (and, it must be said, MS/Sony) don’t really go after the old stuff for the most part. Also, it must be said that several times that emu/ROM sites were shut down and Nintendo was blamed it turned out it wasn’t actually Nintendo. Same thing with that whole streaming copystrike issue- turns out it was some random company taking down gameplay videos, not Nintendo.
Sony already does this too, yet again they pretty much universally get a pass for making you permanently lose almost all (if not all) your stuff if you let your sub lapse. Even if you resub, you don’t get it back.
In my opinion this is just a bad faith argument. Of course they’re not putting their games on PC, they would cannibalize their own sales. Trying to pretend that you should boycott Nintendo for not actively destroying their own economic model is certainly A Take.
Entirely fair. My understanding is that they’re getting better at this, but after the shitshow that was brawl that’s a low fucking bar. I could point out that smash bros isn’t actually Nintendo (it was HAL, then Sora, then Bandai) but like… lets be real here, it’s Sakurai running the show, and Sakurai basically is working for Nintendo even if he isn’t employed there lol.
Nintendo (and, it must be said, MS/Sony) don’t really go after the old stuff for the most part.
They absolutely do. And again, I probably wouldn’t mind if all of the sites they shut down were hosting games that could be legally purchased in a consumer friendly way, but they can’t. Shutting down the Switch emulator built on ill-gotten code is one thing; buying out the legitimate Switch emulator is a super dick move.
Sony already does this too
Thanks for reminding me. I don’t think of Sony much at all, honestly, but they do tend to lock their retro games behind a subscription, some of which can only be played that way. I think they tend to be time-limited and eventually return to sale in most cases? So not quite as bad as what Nintendo does, but still not admirable. I know you went in a different direction with this, but their subscription incentives are theirs to decide; I just hate it when something is only available via subscription when it doesn’t have to be.
In my opinion this is just a bad faith argument. Of course they’re not putting their games on PC, they would cannibalize their own sales. Trying to pretend that you should boycott Nintendo for not actively destroying their own economic model is certainly A Take.
Boycott is a strong word. All of the other reasons I don’t buy their stuff is because of what they do with the revenue that I would give them, but in this case in particular, it’s because I don’t buy bad products when I can instead buy good products. I’m certainly not about to spend $530 plus sales tax to play Tears of the Kingdom at acceptable frame rates on a machine that’s going to sit under my TV collecting dust when I’m done with the game. I already have a PC that could run it if they made it available there, and it would still run it better than Switch 2. Of course they’re doing what they’re doing because it’s more lucrative for them, but if that’s not aligned with what matters to me, then I’m not inclined to give them my money. There are so many other games out there worth playing instead that respect me more as a customer.
No, it’s a sad tale that would be amusing if it wasn’t real people, and has occupied a lot of brain time at 4chan and among gamergate-involved persons. If you want to know more, knowyourmeme has a reasonably objective article.
My understanding is the drama from resulted in him leaving before BL3 was written
Borderlands 3 sold over 20 million, that’s pretty significant even if it is less than 2. The overall quality has certainly gone downhill, but sales is all the companies care about. In my experience boycotts by people who know what’s going on behind the scenes never amount to anything - it’s always the potential buyers who don’t know or care about that stuff that ultimately determine whether a game’s successful or not.
5.6% of [respondents] users said they wouldn’t pre-order [on Epic] knowing it would influence exclusivity, 2.7% said they would.
They really brought in those big dollars with making Borderlands 3 a timed exclusive on Epic. A whole 9%. Meanwhile, 91.6% of respondents preferred Steam. Bravo, Randy. Bravo.
Disappointingly, 53.9% still would buy it on Steam if it influenced exclusivity going forward. Even if it is Steam—which has a record of providing better service than its competitors—exclusivity helps nobody.
Borderlands games aren’t good enough for exclusivity deals. Nintendo’s aren’t, either but in their defense, you don’t have to try very hard to entertain an 8 year old.
If I were gatekeeping, I would’ve mentioned companies that don’t use shotty business practices and their profits for frivolous lawsuits as alternatives.
I was calling out dumb, impulsive consumers. You here for the convention?
Other than GOTY edition of the first game, this entire series has LAN (so far), which is commendable and stupidly rare! I hope the GOTY edition doesn’t show that they’re nixing this for BL4 as well.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze