Borderlands 3 and the State of the Shooter
Could Gearbox find a pro-gamer niche with their next title?
It’s safe to say that Gearbox Software, makers of such smash hits as the Borderlands series and such high-profile disappointments as Battleborn (to say nothing of Duke Nukem Forever and Aliens: Colonial Marines) has had a decade full of ups and downs. And now, with Battleborn well and truly in their rear-view mirror, they’re obviously up to more than just licking their wounds. There are bills to pay, and thus, games to make. And if we’re being honest with ourselves, even if they hadn’t made public assurances that Borderlands 3 was on its way, it’s more of less the only card that Gearbox the developer (as opposed to Gearbox the publisher) has got left to play. But it is one hell of a card. Or at least, it has the potential to be.
With the current discourse so centered on microtransactions, games as a service, and the supposed decline of the single-player narrative experience (Nintendo might have something to say about that one…), Borderlands 3 is in a unique place. With everyone so sick of MTX mechanics, and Borderlands sitting not-so-comfortably on the knife’s edge between single-player and online-only experiences, it’s pretty easy to see how they could be tempted into falling for all the same traps as Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2, turning the Diablo-with-guns that is Borderlands at its best into a cell-shaded Skinner box.
The Borderlands team has been known to learn from their mistakes from time to time, though. The original Borderlands’ PC port was dismal, lacking in any real options and running about as well you would expect from an afterthought platform. But with the sequel (which, full disclosure, I played far more than my fair share of), they had far more PC options than most of their competitors, and even had a brief ad campaign to apologize to the PC audience for their previous efforts. It’s a stretch to say that something that small is any indication of Borderlands 3’s direction, I know, but it does makes you think that someone, at least, is paying attention. So the question becomes: what lessons did they learn from Battleborn, what are they taking away from the current loot box controversies, and what does that tell us about Borderlands 3?
Battleborn’s main failure was in trying to punch well above its weight class. Whether they wanted to or not, the Battleborn team positioned themselves directly in the shadow of Overwatch, and from dozens of failed MMOs to throwback arena shooters like Lawbreakers, there are a great many studios that can attest to the folly of trying to compete with Blizzard. There were other problems with the game, and plenty of things it did well, too, but if you wanted to boil it down to one bullet point, surely that’s it.
So what can that teach them about Borderlands 3? Simple: don’t try to compete with shared world MMO-lite shooters like Destiny 2 and Bioware’s upcoming Anthem. Don’t try to force connectivity to retain user engagement, and don’t turn down the fire-hose of loot that made the original few Borderlands games so much fun just to encourage further play (or, heaven forfend, loot box purchases). Borderlands’ biggest potential strength in this sector is that it has the potential to be the minty-fresh remedy to the sour taste that these inherently exploitative systems are leaving in consumers’ mouths. And that’s a potential advantage that could translate to a whole lot of sales.
But what about after-market earnings? There’s a lot of talk about the ever-increasing expense of making triple-A games, exploding marketing costs, and good old fashioned corporate greed out of publishing-house executives forcing developers into including MTX just to keep the wheels spinning. And while the debate on whether or not the Tower of Babel that is triple-A development has grown too tall to stay standing is not likely to be brought to a close any time soon, there’s certainly some wisdom in the idea that smaller is often tougher, at least in today’s market.
I have little doubt that wiser minds than mine have been hard at work in the Gearbox offices discussing the merits and drawbacks to every conceivable post-launch monetization strategy for the next entry in their flagship franchise. But if the powers that be at Gearbox can look at where the big dogs are stumbling and adjust their own strategy accordingly, it could very well ride the current wave of backlash against shareholders-first bottom lines, and ride a wave of gameplay-first marketing right back up to the top of the market. Cynical? Sure. Effective? Definitely. In fact, it’s been proven time and time again.
After E3 2013, Sony got all the free goodwill it could handle after Microsoft’s tone-deaf Xbox One announcement seemed to focus on everything except games and the people who play them. The most basic “gamers first” marketing push threw them into a lead that they’ve been maintaining ever since, despite the comparative dominance of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 in the previous generation. Gearbox is uniquely poised to do the same thing with Borderlands 3, if they were to position themselves as the co-op shooter that keeps it simple: shoot, loot, repeat. But would the powers that be even allow that kind of approach, even if it was financially feasible? Sadly, only time will tell. You can be sure that once the first gameplay trailer drops, though, I’ll be paying attention.
This article was written by Super Jump contributor, Nick Yates. Please check out his work and follow him on Medium.
