Re: The Borderlands movie is as bad as everyone expected

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:45:59 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 21/08/2024 16:06, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:59:06 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 

Apparently even Uwe Boll is making fun of it.

 
On a related note:
 
Randy Pitchford, CEO Gearbox (developer of Borderlands), tweeted* in
2019 that the Epic Game Store "will outpace Valve’s substantially" and
that "Steam in five or ten years [will] look like a dying store".
Also, "Epic will inevitably surpass Valve on features and quality of
service".
 
It also amuses me that Gearbox announced "Borderlands 4" yesterday,
doubtlessly expecting that the excitement about the movie would help
to hype up the game. Maybe they should have looked at the daily rushes
before scheduling the game's release date.
 
These tweets, the movie, Aliens: Colonial Marines, Duke Nukem
Forever... you know, it suddenly occurs to me that Pitchford may not
be the best person to lead a business. ;-)
 
* here's an article about this very topic!
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/gearbox-boss-randy-pitchford-predicted-that-the-epic-games-store-would-kill-off-steam-5-years-ago-now-the-internet-is-mocking-him-as-borderlands-4-comes-crawling-back/
 

>
That's just so horribly wrong it's laughable. Some of the responses
mentioned in article did make me chuckle though.

From
https://www.ign.com/articles/with-borderlands-4-set-to-ditch-epic-exclusivity-randy-pitchford-addresses-5-year-old-prediction-that-steam-would-become-a-dying-store

'Pitchford went on to insist he’s less “anti-Steam” and more
“pro-competition”. “It’s frustrating how much Steam takes given what
they provide,” he said. “I will happily support competitive platforms
that are more favorable to artists and developers and creators than
favorable to the retail operators."'

While in general I don't disagree with Pitchford's take (even if
saying thatmakes me feel dirty), I do refute the idea that Valve takes
more than it gives back. Yes, it's 30% cut seems high at first
glance... until you remember that price is less than retail
brick-n-mortar stores used to take. Developers flocked to Steam
because it was much CHEAPER to sell on Steam than to press CDs, print
boxes, ship the things to thousands of stores, and then only get a few
weeks on the shelf before their games got shoved to the bargain bin.
And yet, these same publishers still managed to make a profit.

And despite it all, Valve offered a lot of services. Publishers got a
prominent store where they could tout all the advantages of their
game, direct communication with customers (and data-collection), a way
to push add-ons and DLC, and dozens of useful APIs that playing their
games a better experience (and thus more likely to sell) than were
players to buy it elsewhere. Stuff like in-game screenshots,
voice-chat, streaming, and matchmaking were all essentially free
add-ons to developers who used the Steam API.

I'd much rather there were more competition to Valve too, but the
problem isn't that Valve is an unbeatable behemoth, it's that the
competitors aren't willing to invest in the infrastructure to make
their storefronts/clients worth using.

Does Valve charge more? Yes, but both publishers and customers get so
much more. Looking at something like Epic Game Store and whining, "Oh,
but they only charge a 20% premium to Valve's 30%" misses the point
completely. Developers and customers flock to Steam because it offers
the best value for both.

I'd LOVE if there were real competition to Valve/Steam, if only
because we're one greasy hamburger from Newell having a fatal
heart-attack and the whole company being sold to rapacious private
equity firm.