• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Borderlands 3 on Nintendo Switch might not happen

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean, I know Gearbox isn't exactly a tier 1 third party developer, but if you're Nintendo, you should be desperately trying to get as much support as possible after the disaster that was the Wii U.

Although I'm curious what Nintendo's "other priorities" are. It's probably not a spec issue, given that he mentioned Pre-Sequel on Shield. Funding?
 
What an odd chain of tweets.

"Randy, can UE4 run on Switch?"
"We have it running on similar hardware so why not."
"Really? Borderlands 3 on Switch then?!"
"No. Negotiations fell through."

???

Fixed. There's nothing odd about the exchange at all.
 
I mean, I know Gearbox isn't exactly a tier 1 third party developer, but if you're Nintendo, you should be desperately trying to get as much support as possible after the disaster that was the Wii U.

Although I'm curious what Nintendo's "other priorities" are. It's probably not a spec issue, given that he mentioned Pre-Sequel on Shield. Funding?

Their other priorities are probably not getting fucked over by Pitchford. His history is incredibly dodgy, and he'd probably want them to pay for the port. Given that Nintendo is probably keenly aware of what Gearbox did to Sega, I wouldn't be surprised if they just ghosted him. That is, if the conversations happened in the first place.
 
Their other priorities are probably not getting fucked over by Pitchford. His history is incredibly dodgy, and he'd probably want them to pay for the port. Given that Nintendo is probably keenly aware of what Gearbox did to Sega, I wouldn't be surprised if they just ghosted him. That is, if the conversations happened in the first place.
Based on Sony funding and porting Borderlands 2 to the Vita, it's a pretty good bet that he wanted Nintendo to do the same. And who knows? If the Switch software situation ever becomes as dire as the Vita software situation in the West, Nintendo might cave and do just that.
 
Ok.

Games like that were never going to be a big part of the Switch. I don't think this should come as much of a surprise... or loss, considering how many people probably have another system this'll be on already.
 
Having had no interest in Borderlands until it showed up on Vita, I would say I'm very interested in having the series on a portable again and not at all interested otherwise, so keep talking them up, Randy.
 
Based on Sony funding and porting Borderlands 2 to the Vita, it's a pretty good bet that he wanted Nintendo to do the same. And who knows? If the Switch software situation ever becomes as dire as the Vita software situation in the West, Nintendo might cave and do just that.

Given the total shitburger he delivered to Sony, why would you assume that?
 
Given the total shitburger he delivered to Sony, why would you assume that?

Are you kidding? They (Iron Galaxy) got a PS3 AAA game in a playable state on a fucking Vita. What do you expect exactly? It's way beyond what the Vita was originally designed to handle.
 
The first FPS on Switch will have that market to themselves and could immediately be the best-looking FPS on a portable ever. Seems like a wide-open market.

Eh, it might end up being a port of whatever CoD is next.

That last tweet about coop... Have you thought about how the fuck you're going to make a fps work with a single joycon? And if they could make it work somehow, whether or not that's something you'd/ want to play more than a couple times?

Maybe two pair of Joy-Con would be required.
 
Wouldn't it be 2K doing the negoiating on this anyway since they are the publisher?

2K doesn't really bother with Nintendo in general.
 
Their other priorities are probably not getting fucked over by Pitchford. His history is incredibly dodgy, and he'd probably want them to pay for the port. Given that Nintendo is probably keenly aware of what Gearbox did to Sega, I wouldn't be surprised if they just ghosted him. That is, if the conversations happened in the first place.

But they want to work with EA despite EA disrespecting them in the past and arguably right now with that Fifa announcement. I don't think Nintendo is in any position to pick and choose which third-party to support.
Wouldn't it be 2K doing the negoiating on this anyway since they are the publisher?

2K doesn't really bother with Nintendo in general.
Take-Two would be the one to do the talking.
 
That last tweet about coop... Have you thought about how the fuck you're going to make a fps work with a single joycon? And if they could make it work somehow, whether or not that's something you'd/ want to play more than a couple times?

It'd be really janky but analog to move around, gyro to aim, trigger to shoot. Wouldn't work for the vast majority of shooters because of the lack of buttons for more game specific things, and moving your hand around while moving the analog would feel kind of iffy, but the basic premise is possible. Borderlands though? Nah.
 
i find it weird that negotiations had to be made for a port of a game to come to the system.

You do? I mean, generally you do need a console manufacturer's permission to license a game for their system. Nintendo in particularly keeps a close eye on what is released on their hardware. I don't find it strange in the slightest, beyond wondering what it was that turned out to be "other priorities" for Nintendo.
 
When Nintendo went with 32GB, it should have been clear they would not be receiving a lot of AAA support. Most them require tons of patches(that only seem to get bigger with some games)and post polish. It's not a surprise to me that they probably won't get games like this.
 
The store and dlc situation may have something to do with it. But there is very little to be gleaned from this cryptic tweet.
 
Devolver should put Shadow Warrior 2 on there instead, everyone wins: Nintendo covers the shoot & loot demographic, Devolver makes money, no-one has to play Borderlands.
 
I don't think [anyone from Nintendo gave us a hard time]. They said, "Oh, we don't need that." That's what they said. [Laughs] Their philosophy has always been that Nintendo hardware is for their games, and if a publisher wants to publish, "OK you can do it." But if you don't like it, "We don't want you."

(FFVII).
 
Devolver should put Shadow Warrior 2 on there instead, everyone wins: Nintendo covers the shoot & loot demographic, Devolver makes money, no-one has to play Borderlands.

No one except PS4, Xbox One, and PC users.
Randy is clearly trying to obfuscate the truth, that Gearbox's new project is really them trying not to go under.
They're being supported by Take-Two so it really doesn't matter regardless.
 
BL2 and TPS don't run that well on Shield TV
It would be interesting to see how they would perform on Switch since it is clocked lower
 
In all honesty there will not be many big third party games on Switch, I'm certain of that. However if I want to play borderlands 3, will just get it on my main systems. Maybe it's best if Nintendo just completely focus on first party, and with handheld and console game production combined, they might well have a high enough output to keep me busy, well they had better or otherwise this will be my last Nintendo machine, not buying a paperweight to sit about.
 
I expect some releases this year, as it happened with WiiU, but after a poor reception, probably we won't see more multiplatform games
 
No one except PS4, Xbox One, and PC users.

They're being supported by Take-Two so it really doesn't matter regardless.
Like how Irrational Games was supported by Take-Two? Gearbox is a private company is not owned by Take-Two, which is why the money fiasco over Aliens: Colonial Marines happened with Sega. The Borderlands series is only published by 2K (Take-Two's publishing subsidiary), so they are pretty much flying solo right now. It explains why they are selling a $60 Bullestorm re-release.
 
Like how Irrational Games was supported by Take-Two? Gearbox is a private company is not owned by Take-Two, which is why the money fiasco over Aliens: Colonial Marines happened with Sega. The Borderlands series is only published by 2K (Take-Two's publishing subsidiary), so they are pretty much flying solo right now. It explains why they are selling a $60 Bullestorm re-release.

B3 not appearing on the Switch will be the end of the world for them.
 
If Randy Pitchford says it's not happening, does that mean it is happening? I'm not sure how this works.

He lives in a land of make believe, there's no point in trying to predict anything from what he says.
 
But they want to work with EA despite EA disrespecting them in the past and arguably right now with that Fifa announcement. I don't think Nintendo is in any position to pick and choose which third-party to support.

Take-Two would be the one to do the talking.

I would say that working with ea after the disrespect is different then working with a literal con man. Randy has been caught in so many lies and shady dealings at this point I would say yes Nintendo should be leery around him.
 
You do? I mean, generally you do need a console manufacturer's permission to license a game for their system. Nintendo in particularly keeps a close eye on what is released on their hardware. I don't find it strange in the slightest, beyond wondering what it was that turned out to be "other priorities" for Nintendo.

i do, because i never got the feeling that nintendo keeps a 'close eye' on what releases on their hardware, but the only process i'm familiar with is the lotcheck stuff that comes at the end of a publishing arrangement and not the initial planning stages to submit a game/idea.
 
I would say that working with ea after the disrespect is different then working with a literal con man. Randy has been caught in so many lies and shady dealings at this point I would say yes Nintendo should be leery around him.

I really don't think Nintendo cares about what Randy did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom