Follow TV Tropes
This has to start somewhere, and Borderlands 3 is as good a place as any. Especially since it's clear that Randy is not going to stop being an issue. It would be better for Gearbox in the long run too — his influence should be reduced asap before whatever it is that's wrong with him starts catching on to others in the company.
But like I said, I don't see a boycott actually happening here anyway, so it's probably moot. I just object to the idea that we should never boycott anything because it might hurt workers.
Edited by M84 on Aug 30th 2019 at 2:22:00 AM
Luckily I never said that. I just said that the workers would probably feel the effects more than Randy himself does. If you think it's still worth it than go ahead, that's your decision to make as the boycotter.
Edited by Clarste on Aug 29th 2019 at 11:22:54 AM
Except you and others are using that as a reason to not boycott.
And I think it's kind of unfair to imply that anyone who does decide to actually boycott Borderlands 3 (however few they are) doesn't care about Gearbox's employees.
Edited by M84 on Aug 30th 2019 at 2:32:37 AM
You can think it's unfair to imply that, but all I've done is post it as a reaction to the idea that "we should hurt Randy in the wallet." Which is simply not how it works, Randy would not be financially hurt by this no matter what. At best his owners decide that they don't like the publicity and quietly remove him (while he gets a big severance check and probably moves on to other companies).
It's theoretically possible to get him fired, but you won't hurt him financially.
Edited by Clarste on Aug 30th 2019 at 12:43:50 PM
That's the thing. No one's of the opinion that we're going to somehow directly impact Pitchford's bank account by boycotting the game. But if the message "Pitchford is bad for publicity and sales" gets out, others in the company might look for ways to remove him - and if that message is repeated loudly enough, other companies might refuse to hire him too.
We don't need to karmically destroy him, because that's not how real life works. If he's removed from his position, then that's good enough for me to get the game.
People were in fact acting like we needed to karmically destroy him.
Yeah, the point of the theoretical boycott would be consumers sending the message that Pitchford is toxic to Gearbox's brand. Which just might lead to people within Gearbox pressuring him to at least tone it down or take a less public role.
I don't really care if Pitchford leaves Gearbox with a fat bank account or not. I'll be satisfied if he leaves.
Edited by M84 on Aug 30th 2019 at 4:09:24 PM
Oh, he deserves to be karmically destroyed. But like I said, that's not how life works. He's rich and powerful, and that won't change. But that doesn't mean we can't try to shake him out of the shitty nest he's built for himself.
Frankly, I don't think it's very reasonable or realistic to expect people to boycott the latest entry in a very popular franchise that looks rather impressive by its own merit just because the CEO is being an asshole.
It's just not going to happen, I think it's more reasonable to just accept it and hope that Randy faces consequences in some other way.
I don't think it's realistic. I've been saying that over and over again.
Because gamer "boycotts" never pan out.
Edited by M84 on Aug 31st 2019 at 2:00:28 AM
On Borderlands 1, I really hate it that there's no fast travel points in the DLC maps.
Huh that is weird.
Ugh, yeah, I hate that so much. Especially in General Knoxx, the map is way too big to not be able to fast travel through it.
Edited by Resileafs on Aug 30th 2019 at 2:07:13 PM
That seems like really bad game design. Especially in a DLC.
will say. the way 2k games filled NBA 2k19 with literal slot machines and prize wheels to blatantly lootbox their game makes me very wary theyll do the same to borderlands
Edited by Midgetsnowman on Aug 30th 2019 at 11:07:26 AM
Some say it's an intentional design for the players to experience actually driving through point to point. Bullshit. The sidequests indicate a different mentality.
Because gamer "boycotts" never pan out.
I see, fair enough then.
Oh, that sounds horrible :O
I've only played Borderlands 2 so I'm not sure how bad it is in Borderlands 1 but the game would be much more of a grind without fast travel.
It was a terrible design decision, whatever the reason for it, but it was the first Borderlands, so I let it slide. They certainly learned their lessons for the second one.
Like adding color.
Yeah, Borderlands 1 really is as dry as a bone compared to the sequel, which I played first. Weapons all look far more alike (such as Dahl and Hyperion Sniper Rifles not being terrible) and Roland's Scorpio Turret is a lot weaker than Axton's Sabre Turret, despite having a healing/ammo field. Also glad they swapped out Roland's voice actor to sound more serious. Probably will only go through the rest of the DLC maps as him and nobody else.
Might pick up the Pre-sequel, if only to play as "Jack" to avoid the "Villains whom a third have died in the base game" premise later on, via the Handsome Collection.
Double post. Post-release plans. Well, at least with buying Steam, we won't have to wait to get to these parts (aside from completing the main story).
Too bad I'll have to stay away from the Borderlands trope pages to avoid spoilers for half a year. It's always Executive Meddling that loves to torment me.
Borderlands 3 - Official Cinematic Launch Trailer: "Let's Make Some Mayhem"
I'm happy that Tina hasn't changed in personality, but I don't like that I don't see Gaige anywhere.
It's been confirmed that Gaige will be a no-show in the main release. I'm worried that Axton, Salvador, and Krieg will also suffer the same treatment...
Worrying about Krieg is understandable, but Axton and Salvador were MC's from Borderlands 2. I'd be rather surprised if they were not present in some form or other.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?