-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Borderlands 3 on Nintendo Switch might not happen
- Thread starter Omega Kirby
- Start date
- Status
randomengine
Banned
This guy is onto something. I would also take a port of the first one since I passed on it.
I think Borderlands is more valuable as an IP than as a game series developed by Gearbox. They would be wise to never develop a sequel and have someone else make games with their IP.
exmachina64
Banned
I was referring to the cart size.
And I would double dip on that bad boy.
The Borderlands formula felt tired to me by the second game, and I didn't pick up the Pre-Sequel. The Telltale series offered me much more by way of lore, and the wackiness didn't hinder character development or plot.
Though, Zero is still one of the best things to ever happen to Borderlands.
Me too.
onemanasylum
Banned
Come on...you know what he means, compared to the competition they lack the vast majority of third party software.
onemanasylum
Banned
Jesus wtf is this? Borderlands is a AAA franchise always has been. It's not just it's sales that make it an AAA franchise. Borderlands has AAA publisher backing, marketing and budget.
Cat in the Hat
Member
You done melting down?
bitesnintendog
Member
While I generally don't trust Pitchford, I don't doubt major studio and platform holder had discussions regarding a high selling series that runs on similar hardware.
If it got to the point where they started to discuss funding for the port and Nintendo ghosted it wouldn't surprise me. Isn't part of the reason Minecraft took so long to get to the Wii U Nintendo's refusal to pay for the port?
If it got to the point where they started to discuss funding for the port and Nintendo ghosted it wouldn't surprise me. Isn't part of the reason Minecraft took so long to get to the Wii U Nintendo's refusal to pay for the port?
Mikey Jr.
Member
No, its an indie game.
schaft0620
Member
How many times does this have to be said, the 32GB is for the OS and the games will run off expandable SD cards. Borderlands 2 runs on the Vita and it has way less than 32gb. At no point does Randy even insinuate technical limitations.
I guess Nintendo remembered how Gearbox handled that Aliens game for the Wii U and decided to bail for the time being. I'm sure they'll let them jump on at some point, because they don't usually restrict companies from developing on their hardware. They just didn't get in on the initial run.
It wouldn't but it's an effective way of getting Randy Pitchford to say if it's coming or not.
Psychoward
Banned
To be fair, there is a middle ground between AAA and indie, but the Borderlands series doesn't fall in that category. 2 was huge.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
As if working on Nintendo's console is some special privlege. Nintendo needs the third parties. We've been seeing for some time now that third parties don't need them.
GrantDaNasty
Member
Absolutely. The first game was, and the second one more-so.
Just because you don't like it don't mean it ain't so.
It's not, but I'm sure early devkits are limited. Gotta get them into the hands of those who can provide some meaningful impact on their he launch lineup. Gearbox can alway get a devkit after the launch period is over and devkits are readily available. I don't think there's anything wrong here.
Looking at the 3DS in Japan, you can consider that debatable.
The fact that you can only point to japan, a market in decline, says otherwise.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It's pure speculation on your part that development kits are limited. I doubt tiny indie developers have kits while a larger developer with a multimillion selling franchise doesn't.
Anyways I do hope Borderlands winds up on Switch. Nintendo needs to have the big name western third parties if they want to succeed in the West.
Erm, it does say the thirdparties needed them.
The whole thread is nothing but speculation based on the vague statement of a con artist.
Chronospherics
Member
Given the co-operative nature of the game and Nintendo's demonstrated ability to support an efficient and easy to use online infrastructure I don't think it would be a good fit for the switch.
Another issue is that people who want Borderlands 3 most likely own a PS4, XBOX ONE or capable PC already. So aside the market of consumers on Nintendo platforms who're unfamiliar, I doubt it would be all that profitable. I imagine this is going to be how the Switch is viewed for many third parties, and those views will only change if the Switch performs extremely well.
Another issue is that people who want Borderlands 3 most likely own a PS4, XBOX ONE or capable PC already. So aside the market of consumers on Nintendo platforms who're unfamiliar, I doubt it would be all that profitable. I imagine this is going to be how the Switch is viewed for many third parties, and those views will only change if the Switch performs extremely well.
ZeroMaverick
Member
I bet you anything Nintendo stopped talking to Gearbox because Randy is an ass.
Not the bigger ones but the smaller ones have needed them and the DS series after mobile revenue has proven to be very top heavy to a select few.
You really shouldn't bother lumping in the Xbox 1 with the other platforms. It's a joke too.
According to Pitchford, our only source, it was not his decision, it was Nintendos decision
I know, noone reads more than threadtitles
Chronospherics
Member
I did read that but I wouldn't take it at face value, or at least not the way you seem to interpreted it.
It seems that Nintendo weren't interested in their game, but if Gearbox were interested in the Switch then they could have easily pushed to get their games on there. Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft don't need to like your game or even consider it desirable for their platform for you to create a game, for said platform.
As in, it seems incredibly unlikely that Nintendo prevented Gearbox from working on the Switch, what's more likely is that they did not provide the incentive that Gearbox wanted, either in the form of fiance, dev support, or whatever it may have been.
I certainly don't believe that Gearbox couldn't have acquired a dev kit if they wanted one. However from what he said it sounds more as though they wanted Nintendo to lead the discussion, rather than the other way around. Nintendo stopped communicating so they stopped caring. As I say, it does not sound as though they were especially interested in developing for the Switch to begin with.
ChrisMahoney
Banned
"We were talking to Nintendo but that stopped for some reason. They have other priorities."
Stopped? Other priorities? What more needs to be done other than requesting a dev kit?
I agree with you above, Gearbox wanted Nintendo to help fund development
Stopped? Other priorities? What more needs to be done other than requesting a dev kit?
I agree with you above, Gearbox wanted Nintendo to help fund development
Probably heard horror stories from Sega.
I imagine Randy pushing Battleborn porn isn't going to help his case.
tkscz
Member
Probably getting funding out of Nintendo as a form of insurance in case the game doesn't sell.
Saoshyant
Member
"Hello, Randy Pitchford here! And I have a great deal for you guys! We couldn't steal some sucker's money like last time with Sega, would you fund Borderlands 3 for time exclusivity on the Switch? I can promise it would move a million systems!"
"I'm sorry, who did you say you are?"
"Randy Pitchford from Gearbox!"
*hangs up*
"Uh, guess they have other priorities."
"I'm sorry, who did you say you are?"
"Randy Pitchford from Gearbox!"
*hangs up*
"Uh, guess they have other priorities."
Factual statements need to be backed up by facts. But you assume. Based on one source. Or in other words this will leads us nowhere.
Regarding your incredible unlikeliness. Nintendo heavily promoted Alien Colonial Marines, which turned out to be a whole lotta nothing and a ploy to get money out of a more reliable business partner of Nintendo, Sega.
It can be(I dunno if that is the case, hence my this will lead us nowhere), that Nintendo is burned on him. Which could overlap with your speculated lack of incentive. Why would Nintendo offer him a special deal(finance as you put it) after all what happened?
QuantumSquid
Member
I wonder what it's like to have your Switch purchase contingent on the release of a new Borderlands game. Sounds like a sad existence.
there was an Xbox with 4GB of storage and Devs didn't stop making games bigger than that, the line of reasoning you're using is not correct.
There are no cartridge limitations AFAIK, could you please share a link with the info?
outunderthestars
Banned
You are reading WAY too much into a tweet.
There was an Xbox with no storage whatsoever too.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
To be fair if I was forced to talk to Randy I'd be looking to end that conversation.
I'm a Nintendo dev, and I can say with 100% certainty that devkits are limited. We've been trying to get one for a while now, and just have to wait. They should be more readily available in the next couple of months. I have a Wii U kit and my game is coming out on that system. I'd like to add the NS, but can't yet.
16 GB is the standard, as in no Switch cards with less than 16 GB.
Given how techsavy we are on this dedicated gaming forum, many missread it as maximum. Was a fun thread.
ebullientprism
Member
Hellllloooooo CoD Ghosts!
JayWood2010
Member
Vita has Borderlands.
Anyways this is unfortunate. Third parties already shying away from Nintendo Switch
JayWood2010
Member
...what kind of post is this? Borderlands 2 sold 12 Million copies as of early 2015. Its not out of the realm that people will want Borderlands 3
Its not a good thing when a popular franchise says they doubt they will put their game on the Switch considering Nintendo's history with third party.
If you havent noticed, third parties are the leaders of the industry, not first party. Kind of need both to be successful.
Psychoward
Banned
the internet borderlands hate train backlash has gotten so large that people are now rewriting history to convince people borderlands isn't a AAA title
Chronospherics
Member
But are people here not assuming that he means that Nintendo prevented them? He just said that they stopped communicating. That doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean that they couldn't produce a game for Nintendo's systems, it just provides a reason not to.
Generally speaking there's no particular restriction in regards to your ability to develop for a particular platform. Bare in mind that Borderlands is a 2K (Take Two) published game, who already have development kits for the Switch. Gearbox are already licensed Nintendo developers and there's no evidence to suggest that that has been taken away. All that Nintendo generally require is that you have produced games before and that your company exists, there are some articles on Gameasutra about this.
I think if Nintendo had restricted Gearbox's license to create games for the platform then Randy would have said that. All he said was that they stopped talking to Nintendo, it doesn't disclose the reason however it does seem incredibly unlikely that it was because Nintendo wanted to block Gearbox's games onto their system, especially when Gearbox's games are published by 2K, who are are already publishing on the system.
Believe what you like, but what some are suggesting just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that Nintendo should offer them anything, necessarily, but I'm just saying that the lack of something is probably why the conversation stopped, rather than Nintendo making an effort to block their game. From Gearbox's perspective a Switch version of the game probably isn't something they see themselves making a whole lot of money on, and from Nintendo's Gearbox's games probably aren't a best fit for their audience. It's easy to see how a mutual disinterest may have halted the conversation rather than anything explicitly preventing the game from existing on the switch.
It's also worth noting that in the past, non-primary versions of the Borderlands series were not ported by Gearbox. The PS4 and XBOX ONE version of the handsome jack collection and the Vita version of borderlands 2 both list Iron Galaxy Studios as the primary developer on Gearbox's website. It's quite possibly that if a Switch version were to exist it would be encouraged by the publisher (2K) and the port outsourced.
Teuoxton
Member
Nintendo giving a cold shoulder to Borderlands 3 doesn't make sense. Either it's a downright stupid decision on Nintendo's part or Randy started fishing for some sweetheart deal and Nintendo backed off. That last bit is a little far fetched but this is Randy Pitchford we're talking about...
What a shame
What a shame
- Status