Confirmed: Borderlands 3 will be exclusive to the Epic Games Store and launch on September...

[midian182]

Something to look forward to: Gearbox has confirmed that the PC version of Borderlands 3 will arrive as an Epic Games Store exclusive on September 13. Like most other titles that launch solely on the platform, this is a timed exclusivity deal, meaning it will be “available on additional PC digital storefronts in April 2020.”

The news doesn’t come as a huge surprise. Monday saw Borderlands 3’s release date revealed in a deleted tweet posted on the game’s official Twitter account. But being April Fools’ Day, there was always a chance this could have been an elaborate hoax.

Additionally, another deleted tweet, this one showing an ad for the game, suggested it would be an Epic Games Store exclusive, something Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford all but confirmed in a follow-up tweet, where he mentioned a six-month exclusivity period.

Now, the deleted tweets have been confirmed as accurate. There’s also a new trailer that shows off the playable vault hunters: Moze the Gunner, Amara the Siren, FL4K the Beastmaster, and Zane the Operative. Online multiplayer will be available, as will split-screen co-op. Players can team up with anybody, irrespective of their level or mission progress.

The standard version of the game costs $60. You don’t get anything else with it, though preordering secures "gold weapon skins" and a "weapon trinket." There are also an $80 Deluxe Edition and a $100 Super Deluxe Edition, which include cosmetic packs, trinkets and the like. The more expensive of the two also comes with a season pass, which gets buyers the four campaign DLC packs.

Finally, there’s the $250 Diamond Loot Chest collector’s edition, which contains everything from the Super Deluxe Edition along with a Loot Chest Replica, ten figurines, a cloth Galaxy map, a steelbook case, a Sanctuary 3 snap model, keychains, and five character art lithographs.

All three deluxe versions of the game also come with XP and loot boost mods. There isn’t much detail about these so we don’t know if they’re temporary, but their inclusion might cause some controversy.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/79491-confirmed-borderlands-3-exclusive-epic-store-launch-september.html

 

[TomSEA]

Disappointing that another title is being released only through an "exclusive" portal.

I'll buy it simply because I'm a Borderlands junkie. But as soon as I'm done with the game? The Epic client will disappear from my machine.

 

[Misagt]

I got bored after Border Lands 2, so meh.

 

[brucek]

It's like they are doing everything in their power to not get me to buy the game for full price on launch day.

I might have paid $60 full price to get the full game experience on day one.

But, if in addition to sale price, they're also going to gate choice of portal, and not having to play with artificially decreased xp / loot (because it'll eventually get bundled), it sounds like I'll be playing sometime later and they'll be getting a lot less than $60 when I do. Not an idle threat because I have a backlog of equally exciting games I still haven't gotten to either.

 

[Vrmithrax]

As big a fan as I am of the Borderlands series (I pretty much have every BL title there is), I will be waiting until it hits Steam to buy it. I refuse to feed the "exclusives" strategy that Epic (and now 2K) is promoting, because it will only get worse if the strategy proves to be a profitable venture.

And, I refuse to fragment my BL library by having every other title on Steam, and just the one on Epic. You would think that the marketing teams at companies like 2K would consider that type of impact on their loyal player base.

 

[Stark]

Wait for GOY edition >.<

 

[pcnthuziast]

I'm not opposed because I'm stuck on 1 platform (Steam). I'm opposed to using inferior crap in general and epic is just that.

 

[m4a4]

Eh, I might get this one eventually (maybe with the eyepatch discount lol)

But the last one's endgame (towards the final boss) just annoyed me and my friends. Became too much of a bulletsponge-fest.
I did somewhat enjoy the DLC, but not enough to be excited for this one.

 

[kira setsu]

Lock it to a storefront people dont like, that has nowhere near the features compared to steam and some others for more money, yet still shill all the preorder BS and multiple editions.

I love gaming but I hope it crumbles soon, these companies are insane.

 

[Evernessince]

Not going to support this exclusive BS on PC. If EPIC wants to compete, compete on the merits of your store.

 

[erickmendes]

I got bored after Border Lands 2, so meh.

You didn't like Borderlands Presequel? I love it.

 

[erickmendes]

Long is gone the time I used to preorder games, I don't even get them on release anymore... I got a little kid, a day job. The really bad thing is that coop games expire faster, as the older they get the harder is to find people to play with, otherwise, I would get it when it hit 30$ in Steam, but by that time Borderlands 3 coop will be a lifeless void.

 

[ghostf1re]

Confirmed, I won't be buying the game until it hits Steam.

 

[darkzelda]

I've been really lucky, the games that have gotten released exclusively on the Epic Store, are games I don't really care, except for Metro, but was lucky enough to have pre-ordered it months before on steam. I won't support any exclusivity on pc, period.

 

[parowOOz]

Disappointing that another title is being released only through an "exclusive" portal.

I'll buy it simply because I'm a Borderlands junkie. But as soon as I'm done with the game? The Epic client will disappear from my machine.

Way to take a stand - give them money but uninstall the launcher after completing the game, that'll show them...

 

[erickmendes]

Know what, if Epic want to stand apart, make a client so thin I won't notice it on my system... No system tray icon, no performance impact, perhaps just a service running on the background to check the game key/account with online server, and a web store front where I can go buy the games.... that hyper thin client would make epic game store stand from the game launcher crowd making it easier to swallow...

Uncouple my games from a f*cking launcher, for gods sake.

I could live with something like this.

 

[parowOOz]

Know what, if Epic want to stand apart, make a client so thin I won't notice it on my system... (...).

Aren't Steam, Origin, GOG Galaxy and others pretty much custom web browsers ? None of them take significant amount of resources to run so what you wish for is actually already here. The closest would be GOG Galaxy as it isn't really needed after downloading a game since GOG sells DRM-free games.

BTW that background check of your installation, cloud saves, achievements, chat function, ability to invite your friends to a game etc. have to be tracked/checked somehow so it would be hard to "uncouple" games from launchers.

The problem with Epic is that they have a storefront they know can't even begin to compete with Steam as a platform. I mean they don't even have a shopping cart for crying out loud ! You can't buy more than one game at a time ! What ?! You create an Internet store and don't even put ubiquitous function like a shopping cart in ? Seriously ? And so the only way they can compete is to bribe publishers and take away players choice. Screw that.

 

[erickmendes]

Aren't Steam, Origin, GOG Galaxy and others pretty much custom web browsers ? None of them take significant amount of resources to run so what you wish for is actually already here. The closest would be GOG Galaxy as it isn't really needed after downloading a game since GOG sells DRM-free games.

BTW that background check of your installation, cloud saves, achievements, chat function, ability to invite your friends to a game etc. have to be tracked/checked somehow so it would be hard to "uncouple" games from launchers.

The problem with Epic is that they have a storefront they know can't even begin to compete with Steam as a platform. I mean they don't even have a shopping cart for crying out loud ! You can't buy more than one game at a time ! What ?! You create an Internet store and don't even put ubiquitous function like a shopping cart in ? Seriously ? And so the only way they can compete is to bribe publishers and take away players choice. Screw that.

Wow. Didn't know Epic was so unprepared like this... But really what I was talking about was to have the option to have a hyperthin client... All those features from Steam are nice to have, but I really barely use any of them most of the time. Understand now why I would like to have the option to have the thinnest possible "store" client? Since they don't sell games without DRM, that would just let me play the games, just a windows service to keep my games "licensed" so I can play. Then if I wanted to use the full fledged client, I would open it,or better yet, open the web page for the game store. As even Steam is just a browser, leave this work for my chosen browser.

 

[parowOOz]

Wow. Didn't know Epic was so unprepared like this... But really what I was talking about was to have the option to have a hyperthin client... All those features from Steam are nice to have, but I really barely use any of them most of the time. Understand now why I would like to have the option to have the thinnest possible "store" client? Since they don't sell games without DRM, that would just let me play the games, just a windows service to keep my games "licensed" so I can play. Then if I wanted to use the full fledged client, I would open it,or better yet, open the web page for the game store. As even Steam is just a browser, leave this work for my chosen browser.

Ah, then we differ in the way we use Steam.

I understand where you're coming from with the thin client idea. Still though, even with all of the bells and whistles, Steam isn't really taxing on modern systems so it's impact on performance is negligible.

As for launching games without having to launch another application first, well, the problem here is that Steam, Origin and others are DRM systems in and of themselves. Otherwise every game would have to have that portion of the platform implemented in them. In that example if a developer/publishers updates/changes their DRM system, you would have to update each and every game you have from said developer. Since there would most likely be games that were released years apart in your library, the update system would have to take into account that there are probably a few different versions of DRM systems inside those games. You can be sure an update system like that would cause headaches, problems with activation etc. So a centralised hub for launching games is preferable. At least until such a time when publishers stop DRM protecting their games - unlikely

 

[erickmendes]

Ah, then we differ in the way we use Steam.

I understand where you're coming from with the thin client idea. Still though, even with all of the bells and whistles, Steam isn't really taxing on modern systems so it's impact on performance is negligible.

As for launching games without having to launch another application first, well, the problem here is that Steam, Origin and others are DRM systems in and of themselves. Otherwise every game would have to have that portion of the platform implemented in them. In that example if a developer/publishers updates/changes their DRM system, you would have to update each and every game you have from said developer. Since there would most likely be games that were released years apart in your library, the update system would have to take into account that there are probably a few different versions of DRM systems inside those games. You can be sure an update system like that would cause headaches, problems with activation etc. So a centralised hub for launching games is preferable. At least until such a time when publishers stop DRM protecting their games - unlikely

So there comes my point, the DRM part is the only one needed to run the game. It could be a simple Windows service. Keep the update management with the centralized client but don't make need to run it just to play the game.

Even better, join forces with MS and make a Windows License service that check onlin with the right software provider if you have the needed license to run any paid software.
That would simply offload that damned function from the "launchers", so they could better focus on community features.

This would kill the launcher debate while also undermining piracy.

 

[lipe123]

Obviously there is a lot of money involved here but it's frustrating. Why lock your distribution to just one channel when you can make SO MUCH more sales by letting multiple distributors host your game.

And to top it off even more BL uses their own launcher/updater for their games anyways and has never relied on steam or anyone else to actually update/install their game.

 

[parowOOz]

So there comes my point, the DRM part is the only one needed to run the game. It could be a simple Windows service. Keep the update management with the centralized client but don't make need to run it just to play the game.

Even better, join forces with MS and make a Windows License service that check onlin with the right software provider if you have the needed license to run any paid software.
That would simply offload that damned function from the "launchers", so they could better focus on community features.

This would kill the launcher debate while also undermining piracy.

Well, that would mean the service would have to be running all the time monitoring each and every app you launch (sort of like an AV software) for it to be completely self suficient. That might prove to be much more taxing than running a launcher and it would most likely raise concerns of privacy.

Don't see the benefit of going with Microsoft. First of all, they wouldn't do that from the kindness of their hearts so additional costs. And then you'd be running into another issue which is tying your games to an OS. Otherwise publishers would not only have to pay MS for their service but also keep something like Steam for other platforms. Don't think that's a practical solution

 

[erickmendes]

Well, that would mean the service would have to be running all the time monitoring each and every app you launch (sort of like an AV software) for it to be completely self suficient. That might prove to be much more taxing than running a launcher and it would most likely raise concerns of privacy.

Don't see the benefit of going with Microsoft. First of all, they wouldn't do that from the kindness of their hearts so additional costs. And then you'd be running into another issue which is tying your games to an OS. Otherwise publishers would not only have to pay MS for their service but also keep something like Steam for other platforms. Don't think that's a practical solution

I can understand your points, but tackling piracy altogether would be a great advantage for the entire industry, so the cost could be a real investment from MS and other players.

About the performance hit, It could hash the local game executable and keep that in a local cache, then check If you got license against a locally cached key repository. On newer CPUs It can be handled more easily. Sure there still performance penalty for the first run or hash refresh, but the benefit of a simpler, more robust piracy solution that could be platform wide seems pretty attractive to me at least.
If Microsoft want to tax someone for this, do like 10% of what DRM solution ask for game publishers, that would put them out of business.

I believe even Microsoft is competent enough to make a mechanism like this that won't add a relevant performance hit.

 

[parowOOz]

I can understand your points, but tackling piracy altogether would be a great advantage for the entire industry, so the cost could be a real investment from MS and other players.

About the performance hit, It could hash the local game executable and keep that in a local cache, then check If you got license against a locally cached key repository. On newer CPUs It can be handled more easily. Sure there still performance penalty for the first run or hash refresh, but the benefit of a simpler, more robust piracy solution that could be platform wide seems pretty attractive to me at least.
If Microsoft want to tax someone for this, do like 10% of what DRM solution ask for game publishers, that would put them out of business.

I believe even Microsoft is competent enough to make a mechanism like this that won't add a relevant performance hit.

I think you put way too much faith in Microsoft. They can't stop pirates from hacking their operating systems, Office suites and others. If they had the tech to eliminate piracy I think they would have already done that with their existing products.

Other factor is that I really do not think piracy is as big of an issue as some make it out to be. It's a complex problem and not as simple as "if you stop pirates from getting illegal copies they are going to buy their games". And so actual financial gains from eliminating piracy might not be all that great.

Yeah, storing activation details locally is ripe for hacking and abuse

 

[Misagt]

Long is gone the time I used to preorder games, I don't even get them on release anymore... I got a little kid, a day job. The really bad thing is that coop games expire faster, as the older they get the harder is to find people to play with, otherwise, I would get it when it hit 30$ in Steam, but by that time Borderlands 3 coop will be a lifeless void.

It only works if you have a friend who wanted to play through it with you. I think it's why I didn't enjoy The prequel too much. I didn't have a friend to play the insanity with.