Gearbox has 'always profited from criticism' - Randy Pitchford (possibly fake)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (9020 posts) -

Aliens getting slammed by critics, Randy Pitchford tells us he hasn't looked over reviews but Gearbox has "always profited from criticism"

Source: https://twitter.com/GIBiz/status/301382292176257024

I work for the company. But don't let that fool you, I'm really an okay guy.

#2 Posted by Neon_Noir (1503 posts) -
Freaking Gearbox sucks so much.
#3 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

I didn't think badly of Randy Pitchford until now, but if he doesn't publicly apologize about the demo thing he'll look like a huge douche.

It's a good thing I don't care about Borderlands or BIA.

#4 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (9020 posts) -
I just realized it's bollocks. But nevermind, just join the fun :D
#5 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (9020 posts) -
Watch his speech from a week ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpiWZDW62zM
#6 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

I didn't think badly of Randy Pitchford until now, but if he doesn't publicly apologize about the demo thing he'll look like a huge douche.

It's a good thing I don't care about Borderlands or BIA.

Cherokee_Jack
Pretty much this. I don't think I've ever lost so much respect for a developer in such a short period of time. It's not even that they made a bad game. It's that they outright lied to people about it.
#7 Posted by lamprey263 (24223 posts) -
he hasn't looked over the reviews my ass, they were already undergoing damage control within an hour or two of the 1AM PST review embargo lift, he went from making several Tweets a day to going silent... this is pretty pathetic
#8 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

Watch his speech from a week ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpiWZDW62zMSalt_The_Fries

That's kind of sinister in hindsight.

Interesting talk anyway.

#9 Posted by SuperNovaftw (2636 posts) -
Freaking Gearbox sucks so much. Neon_Noir
They should have tested their game known it would suck they should have cancelled it. I dont understand how these devs make terrible games. First time is fine but second? Hell no.
#10 Posted by Blazerdt47 (5665 posts) -

I don't believe Gearbox as a whole deserves this criticism. Randy Pitchford alone deserves it pretty much.

#11 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

They should have tested their game known it would suck they should have cancelled it.SuperNovaftw

Yeah, after spending millions of dollars in funding from Sega over several years, they should have said "Yeah, a few of us were playing this game, and we decided it isn't good enough, so we're just gonna......not give you any return on your investment? Cool?"

#12 Posted by SuperNovaftw (2636 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuperNovaftw"][QUOTE="Neon_Noir"]Freaking Gearbox sucks so much. Cherokee_Jack

They should have tested their game known it would suck they should have cancelled it.

Yeah, after spending millions of dollars in funding from Sega over several years, they should have said "Yeah, a few of us were playing this game, and we decided it isn't good enough, so we're just gonna......not give you any return on your investment? Cool?"

Better then selling somthing that wont even get any sales. Its as if they made the game the night before the deadline it sucks so bad. They should know it sucks and they should cancel and give the rest of the money to charity they dont deserve it. Dont try fvcking defending them unless you work for them.
#13 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

Better then selling somthing that wont even get any sales.SuperNovaftw

Yeah, getting zero money is sure better than getting not very much money.

#14 Posted by getyeryayasout (7602 posts) -
Behold Pitchford! The internet and it's wrath! I feel bad for the low level employees who toil over games for years, only to have their bosses send it to market half baked so it inevitably gets destroyed by critics. It must be frustrating.
#15 Posted by Neon_Noir (1503 posts) -
Pitchford scared of them pitchforks.
#16 Posted by SuperNovaftw (2636 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuperNovaftw"]Better then selling somthing that wont even get any sales.Cherokee_Jack

Yeah, getting zero money is sure better than getting not very much money.

Those sales will be from hardcore fans and not knowledgeable average joes who think the game looks good. Better to get no sales then to scam people 60$
#17 Posted by finalfantasy94 (26587 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

[QUOTE="SuperNovaftw"]Better then selling somthing that wont even get any sales.SuperNovaftw

Yeah, getting zero money is sure better than getting not very much money.

Those sales will be from hardcore fans and not knowledgeable average joes who think the game looks good. Better to get no sales then to scam people 60$

Its part of the buisness world.

#18 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

[QUOTE="SuperNovaftw"]Better then selling somthing that wont even get any sales.SuperNovaftw

Yeah, getting zero money is sure better than getting not very much money.

Those sales will be from hardcore fans and not knowledgeable average joes who think the game looks good. Better to get no sales then to scam people 60$

Yeah, Sega and Gearbox should have taken huge losses and probably fired a bunch of people to defend us from a game we might not like.
#19 Posted by topgunmv (10248 posts) -

I just realized it's bollocks. But nevermind, just join the fun :DSalt_The_Fries

If it's fake then you should change the title to reflect that.

#20 Posted by jamejame (10480 posts) -

I read Gearbox didn't even develop the campaign, only the multiplayer, which I've heard is fun. I'm not saying that makes the false advertsing alright, but they're still quality developers as far as I can tell.

#21 Posted by jhcho2 (4427 posts) -

Well, Randy isn't wrong about what he said. When Gearbox made DNF, half of the sales were from diehard Duke fans who had to buy it no matter what. The other half was from gamers who wanted to check it out to see how bad it really was. It was almost akin to people buying 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' to see what the proclaimed worst movie of all time was like.

The thing is, when a game drastically falls short of expectation, and there is so much talk and controversy about it in the forums, people will just have to buy it and see for themselves. Admittedly, I bought RE6 just to see how bad it was. I am not an RE fan.

#22 Posted by jsmoke03 (12930 posts) -

he's made good games and hes made bad ones...nothing new. self confidence borders on narcisism but whatever...

#23 Posted by mAArdman (1612 posts) -

they'll be able to do a lot of profiting, then

#24 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Neon_Noir"]Freaking Gearbox sucks so much. SuperNovaftw
They should have tested their game known it would suck they should have cancelled it. I dont understand how these devs make terrible games. First time is fine but second? Hell no.

I don't think Gearbox could just cancel it, not after they've strung along Sega for all these years. They'd be pissed.
#25 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14454 posts) -

not liking gearbox much lately but this doesn't seem too legit to me.

#26 Posted by DoomZaW (6471 posts) -

I read Gearbox didn't even develop the campaign, only the multiplayer, which I've heard is fun. I'm not saying that makes the false advertsing alright, but they're still quality developers as far as I can tell.

jamejame
The problem from what i understood from that alleged former employee, was that gearbox originally worked on the title, until they became to occupied with Borderlands and DNF, at which point it was outsourced to timeline, who didn't like much of what gearbox had made in 2 years, and pretty much reworked everything. However when gearbox got the game back in their hands, they didn't like what Timeline had done, and basically started from scratch AGAIN. This is possibly also why the demo was so different from the actual game since the majority of the demo was what Timeline had done. Really shows how crap swapping developers back and forth is.
#27 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14454 posts) -

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

I read Gearbox didn't even develop the campaign, only the multiplayer, which I've heard is fun. I'm not saying that makes the false advertsing alright, but they're still quality developers as far as I can tell.

DoomZaW

The problem from what i understood from that alleged former employee, was that gearbox originally worked on the title, until they became to occupied with Borderlands and DNF, at which point it was outsourced to timeline, who didn't like much of what gearbox had made in 2 years, and pretty much reworked everything. However when gearbox got the game back in their hands, they didn't like what Timeline had done, and basically started from scratch AGAIN. This is possibly also why the demo was so different from the actual game since the majority of the demo was what Timeline had done. Really shows how crap swapping developers back and forth is.

If that's to be believed then the Timeline version looked like a better game by far.

#28 Posted by DoomZaW (6471 posts) -

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"][QUOTE="jamejame"]

I read Gearbox didn't even develop the campaign, only the multiplayer, which I've heard is fun. I'm not saying that makes the false advertsing alright, but they're still quality developers as far as I can tell.

ReadingRainbow4

The problem from what i understood from that alleged former employee, was that gearbox originally worked on the title, until they became to occupied with Borderlands and DNF, at which point it was outsourced to timeline, who didn't like much of what gearbox had made in 2 years, and pretty much reworked everything. However when gearbox got the game back in their hands, they didn't like what Timeline had done, and basically started from scratch AGAIN. This is possibly also why the demo was so different from the actual game since the majority of the demo was what Timeline had done. Really shows how crap swapping developers back and forth is.

If that's to be believed then the Timeline version looked like a better game by far.

 

 

Found the article, sorry about mistaking developer name, it was Timegate (Section 8 developers)

#29 Posted by True_Chaos_UK (2570 posts) -

940cd4ab_Tx6e4Ik.gif.

#30 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72434 posts) -
They should not have outsourced this game period
#31 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

940cd4ab_Tx6e4Ik.gif.

True_Chaos_UK

Class

#32 Posted by rrjim1 (911 posts) -

Just received my copy last night and played for about three hours. IMO so far anyome that gave this game less that a 6 is a complete A hole!

#33 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

This is turning out really bad for them, they need to settle a few things and come out with a proper statement or apology about the whole thing so gamers nkow what the sh!t happened. What we were shown and what we got were incredibly different, almost disgustingly so

#34 Posted by Truth_Hurts_U (9260 posts) -

They should not have outsourced this game periodThe_Last_Ride

In the credits there was something like 6+ studios that worked on the game. Took over 20 mins to watch it... All those people... For this quality of game.

#35 Posted by WiiMan21 (8185 posts) -

This is turning out really bad for them, they need to settle a few things and come out with a proper statement or apology about the whole thing so gamers nkow what the sh!t happened. What we were shown and what we got were incredibly different, almost disgustingly so

seanmcloughlin
I agree, when a company is apathetic towards their fan base then it shows that they truly care. However the way they are going about everything shows that they don't.
#36 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18414 posts) -

I didn't think badly of Randy Pitchford until now, but if he doesn't publicly apologize about the demo thing he'll look like a huge douche..

Cherokee_Jack
This, I enjoyed BIA and Borderlands but after Aliens.. just wow. They clearly spent the money on Borderlands 2 making it a polished game yet Aliens looks worse than it did earlier, is riddled with bugs and Gearbox can't blame Timegate as Sega will then know Gearbox didn't actually spend the money building the game and will be in trouble. I had thought highly of Gearbox but after Aliens.. it makes me go back and doubt what they say about Duke Nukem. Maybe they had more to do with the end result than they let on seeing how bad Aliens turned out. That games do have a lot of similarities.
#37 Posted by Heil68 (45220 posts) -
I'll wait to see if he has a statement, but it's not looking good for Gearbox.
#38 Posted by lild1425 (6757 posts) -

That game was made by Gearbox????? I had no idea until now.

When it comes to developers, they have always been the Good Guy Greg's to me and one of my faves.