No Borderlands Pre-Sequel For Next-Gen, Randy Pitchford Says

No Borderlands Pre-Sequel For Next-Gen, Randy Pitchford Says

Borderlands Pre-Sequel screen

Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford says there just aren't enough next-gen consoles in circulation to justify the expense of developing the new Borderlands game for them.

Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel was announced earlier today, bringing another four characters to Gearbox's hit multiplayer shooter franchise. But it's not bringing the franchise to the latest and greatest game consoles - that would be the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 - because in Pitchford's opinion, it's just too expensive.

"It's not free to build a game for next-gen," Pitchford told Eurogamer. "So when we decide where to spend our resources, we want to spend all of the attention we can on the game itself.

There are still a lot of Borderlands players who haven't upgraded to the latest console generation, he explained, but the number of Xbox One and PlayStation 4 owners who don't have a previous-gen console is negligible.

"Currently there is - between PS3 and Xbox 360 - over 150m installed units worldwide - probably 170m is more realistic. There are fewer Xbox Ones and PS4s than we sold copies of Borderlands 2," he said. "But because Borderlands 2 did so well there's obvious demand there, and we have not been able to serve it sufficiently with just DLCs. And we've consumed all the memory there is to consume to add more content to Borderlands 2."

Pitchford said it's reasonable to assume that there's still a lot of demand for more Borderlands, but it "lives on the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC. We don't know to what extent it'll live on in the next gen. I imagine over time - maybe by the time we get to the third or fourth Christmas - there will be enough of an install base."

It's an interesting line of reasoning, but not one I'm inclined to go along with. The installed base of Xbox One and PS4 consoles is obviously tiny compared to their predecessors but it still numbers in the multiple millions, and more importantly it's one with a relative dearth of games. The mountain may not be as high, in other words, but the road to the top is a lot less crowded, and while Borderlands 2 may be the best-selling Gearbox game of all time, I don't think the series is so wildly popular that it can afford to blow off potential markets.

But hey, I'm not in charge of a big-time game studio, so what do I know? Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is slated to launch this fall for the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC, and nothing else.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

Its probably not that Randy is saying it, but rather that 2K apparently agrees with him since its being published.

Either way, its coming to PC. So ive no reason to care.

Fine by me, I love Borderlands and I'm not getting a next-gen console any time soon.

Johnny Novgorod:
Fine by me, I love Borderlands and I'm not getting a next-gen console any time soon.

Same here. Not interested in a next gen console but I like Borderlands on the console because of splitscreen.
I'm surprised Borderlands isn't a big enough franchise that MS & Sony wouldn't subsidize it; so it would exclusively be on the next gen consoles. Y'know, to get more people to buy them.

"Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford says there just aren't enough next-gen consoles in circulation to justify the expense of developing the new Borderlands game for them."

And because they don't have any other projects to funnel money from.

It seems reasonable. I mean, sure, it'd be lovely to have more games on the new consoles that are obviously lacking them right now, but I can certainly see multiple reasons why the game shouldn't come out on them. For one, I don't think Borderlands could really receive much of a benefit from the extra power. It already has a gorgeous cell-shaded style, which doesn't exactly call for incredibly high res textures and graphics. It might have been nice to have a few extra environment details and enemies on screen with no slow down, but it's not a big deal. Plus, it's still coming to PC, which has technically been "next gen" for years if you've got the hardware.

Andy Chalk:
The mountain may not be as high, in other words, but the road to the top is a lot less crowded,

Could cost be a deciding factor?

We've already had publishers turning round and declaring that three million in sales wasn't profitable enough to justify a franchise continuing. Presumably the new consoles raise the cost of producing a game even further, not to mention the cost of developing for five separate platforms at the same time (and the risk of that turning out like Battlefield 4 has).

If they project two or three million sales on the new consoles, but have to add another fifty percent onto the budget to do it, I can see that being reason not to.

I got to say I'm a little disappointed in this, especially as I heard it appears the prequel will be taking place on the moon of Pandora and the Hyperion base, a place I hoped we would get to visit (and somewhere that seemed like a logical choice to visit after the ending events of Borderlands 2). Maybe it'll still happen if and when we do get a current gen (are we at the stage where we can stop calling the Xbox One and PS4 next-gen yet? If not, then when?) Borderlands game.

As it stands, I do like Borderlands, but I don't know if I'd want to play this prequel enough to spend money on this game that could be going towards a current gen game. Oh and it's Borderlands, so I would of course need to reactivate my Live sub for a while again to get the most out of it.

This makes way more sense given that they were developing for 360 and PS3 anyways. I can't imagine there's that big of a market that want Borderlands and will only buy it if it's on the XBone and the PS4. It's not like those however many million PS4 owners only own PS4s.

logical; why ignore 160 million hardware units? It seems like most people are in no rush to buy the new systems so there's little reason to jump on since they'll still be there in a couple years. I wouldn't be surprised if the game gets a port down the line though.

Well, if it worked as an excuse when everybody said they weren't working on anything for the Wii U, it'll work as an excuse for anything else if you yell it loudly enough.

i chalk up the people now appearing to call him out on this to be a complete coincidence that has nothing to do with which platforms we are talking about

Zachary Amaranth:
"Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford says there just aren't enough next-gen consoles in circulation to justify the expense of developing the new Borderlands game for them."

And because they don't have any other projects to funnel money from.

Exactly this. It's cheaper just to reuse the same shit you have and pay the art monkeys a little bit to make a few variations on NPCs that already exist and code monkeys to shit out an extra mechanic so you have to do as little real developmental work anyways. Why would he want to spend money on developing for the next gen dev kits, test and update the art and everything, when the only projects they have to drain money from people with is a project they themselves already own?

I can understand leaving everything to do with BL2 for the last generation and all on the same platforms, so that everyone can experience the story that hasn't bought a new generation console. That way when BL3 comes out, it will be a fresh start on a new generation.

I loved BL2. I put a ridiculous amount of time into it with friends. I am one of those estimated 170m units. I also own a PS4 and will pass on the next Borderlands if it stays last gen.

Partially because many of my friends that I would play it with will not be able to join me after selling their last gen systems to get current gen, but also because I think it is a stupid, short sighted move on their part.

From a business standpoint, he makes a good argument. From a hardware, not so much. BL1, and to a lesser extent in BL2, always felt to me like it was suffering from the system's lack of RAM. The game could have been open world, but it wasn't. Too often I see enemies culled when leaving the area too far, and I also see enemies spawn in when you get close. More RAM could have fixed that. This prequel could end up being weaker in design than it has the potential to be, and that disappoints me.

Port pc version to XO and Ps4 or just the ps60 version except 60fps/AA/whatever else is easy to do.

This to me seems a "why not both" situation... Surely they could get a million out of next gen between the two.

Seems like a very well thought out decision. And its coming out for PC which is already more "next-gen" then the current "next-gen" (awkward tenses). Once PS4 and Xbone drop by about 200$ I will pick one up...so hopefully after next Christmas.

Well, look at it this way... When all of that Pre-Sequel DLC finally comes out, you can focus on porting the trilogy three Borderlands games to next-gen... You know, because by then there will be "enough" of an install base to justify it, right?

Right??

RIGHT???

Zachary Amaranth:
"Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford says there just aren't enough next-gen consoles in circulation to justify the expense of developing the new Borderlands game for them."

And because they don't have any other projects to funnel money from.

LOL I didn't want to say it but I sure was thinking it...

this. pretty much just this. everything else being said is moot

Speaking as someone who has bought a next-gen console, I won't be buying the "Pre-Sequel" for my Xbox 360. Yeah, I loved Borderlands 2, but I don't see much point in buying a game for a console that's starting its inevitable death-spiral. Sure, I'll probably eventually buy it, but I'll either pick it up for PC or wait until its ported to Xbox One.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here