"I don't know" how much Borderlands 4 will cost, Gearbox boss says, but it had "more than twice the development budget for Borderlands 3" and "it might be" $80 like some Nintendo and Xbox games

I could look past the story and enjoy the gameplay. But the game itself still sucked and was very empty. A few months after launch they did an event where each week a different planet had a lot event and you could target items. 3 of the planets only had one or two areas to even farm decent numbers. Most of the game is empty.

Combine that with my own personal issue with Gearbox removing the official forums, (which had years of builds and information going back to BL1) and a certain YouTuber stealing content and using modded weapons and then denying it. I have no interest in BL4.

The old gearbox is dead. Even watching the video it just looks like reused skills. Oh look another character that puts enemies into floating balls, how original.

$80 I can wait.

With all the dlc.

Exactly. Also it's way costlier to set up a hone theatre at home compared to buying a cheap gaming laptop and play indie oe competitive fps games.

Yeah, and half the time I prefer the games that were originally $20-$40 MSRP that I bought 50% off.

Will it be yet another Borderlands game that I don't buy until the GOTY edition goes on sale for less than $20? "It might be."

I didn't bother with 3 thanks to it's stupid epic store exclusivity

I bought it in Fall 2024 for like 25 bucks with all DLCs. So I'll wait year or two with BL4 no problem, there's plenty other games I can play. I never buy brand new games.

Even worse than my backlog, there are all the comfort games I play every few years and which takes me months to complete (cause some of them are fairly long like The Witcher 3) and thanks to my crappy memory, multiple choices and mods I can enjoy them as much every time

Super Mario Bros. 3 was released as a fully finished product that I actually own a physical copy of.

Borderlands 4, will probably be a quarter finished when it released, filled with all kinds of apologies, possibly have micro transactions, and will likely be able to be taken out of my library at some point as it's digital only.

The value is not the same.

you can’t use straight 1:1 inflation to infer what the contemporary cost should be of digital products like video games, movies, tv shows, music etc. There is no physical asset to tie the individual product value to. There are of course production costs, but those are the same whether you make 50 copies or 50 million.

The reason inflation hasn’t hit video game prices is because the video game market has grown exponentially since the 90s. They make more money by selling low margin at higher volume, compared to high margin and low volume. It’s all about maximizing that total profit, not individual sales.

Publishers can try to charge more, but it’ll be up to consumers if that actually gets them any more money overall. only time will tell.

Nah. I keep seeing this argument and I really disagree with it. It's actually really simple economics; we don't need to calculate inflation into this. If I think the price of something is too high (especially something I don't need to survive), I don't buy it. Companies can cry all they want, in the end I don't care.

Except the production costs have also gone down. The development itself is easier thanks to better tooling and developers no longer require putting out physical media (which used to be a pretty significant part of cost).

And there's no excuse for $80 when Clair Obscur released at $50 and is one of the best games released this year. I seriously doubt BL4 will be $30 more impressive than Clair Obscur. How about studio heads do their job and streamline their production process to make better products for lower costs instead of offloading their bloat onto the customers.

Counterpoint for the general case: games also have a much larger playerbase these days and manufacturing of cartridges and components can be done at much greater economies of scale. In many cases, there is no physical media manufacturing cost to a lot of the sales.

For the specific point: Gearbox/Take2 have lost all faith from me so, while I don't generally mind some games being in that price range, there's zero chance pitchford and his ilk are getting that from me.

The industry is completely different now. The original was made in the 80s when programmers were hard to find and it took 10 of them 2 years and a million dollars to make. Then physical cartridges needed to be made and distributed that only ran on specialized hardware that also needed to be made and distributed. It selling for the equivalent of $180 could be justified since it was niche technology. There's a reason Biggie Smalls brags about owning a Super Nintendo and a Sega Genesis in a rap song. That shit was expensive even in 1994.

Today, someone can make Super Mario Bros 3 in a month after watching some game dev tutorials on YouTube, upload the .exe to Steam, and sell limitless copies to anyone who owns a computer. Selling it for $180 would be ridiculous. There's no reason tech today should cost the exact same as it did in the 80s.

$60 in 1992 is about $135 in April 2025, inflation included.

Sure games became more complex, but tools became more powerfull, and so did computers.

In 1992 you often had to code your own engine, which amounted for a good chunk of the development cost. They had to do that using a ressource envelope magnitudes smaller than what we have today. Heck, a jpeg screencap of the original Mario game is bigger than the whole original game itself. Let's not forget that games where physical, which had to be included in the final price.

Todays devs often uses off the shelf engines, tools that automate some of the tedious task, like making trees (Speedtree) and asset reuse is done on an industrial level, there are even marketplaces for that. Moreover, game distribution changed to be mostly digital, you don't need to factor the medium price into the asked price.

You cannot really compare 1992 dev costs with modern ones. The whole way games are done changed way too much for that.

Moreover, the market has grown way beyond what is was then. The required profit per copy sold is a lot smaller than it was then, and thus should be accojnted for.

Honesty, I don't see a AAA needing to have more than $60-70 atm, and I think this bump in price is entirely due to the ever increasing marketing cost, more than the game development.

1992 was a very different time with very different market conditions and consumer behaviour for video games. Games used to have a much greater perceived entertainment value, despite their relatively small development budgets compared with today. They were also entirely physical media and renting was still a very common way to play them. From what I remember, it wasn't the most financially accessible hobby either. Most of my friends growing up didn't have permanent access to their own gaming console and not everyone that did had all the latest games. Nowadays, the gaming market is completely saturated with high quality titles, most of which are fairly cheap as well if you don't buy them on release.

In any case: Super Mario Bros 3 came out in 1988 and released 1990 and 1991 for the US and Europe respectively. It also didn't cost $59 and your inflation calculation seems off...

I'm not sure where you're numbers are coming from, but the inflation calculator I found through Google says that $59 in 1992 is more like $135 today. That's still a significant increase of course, although I wonder how much publishers benefit from not needing as much physical distribution. After the initial investment selling digital keys on a third-party storefront like Steam should be pure profit, no?

I hate that you get downvoted for pointing out the reality of the situation.

Relative to the price of everything else, $80 for a AAA videogame is actually reasonable. The problem is that rent has gone up drastically, food has gone up drastically, and our wages have stagnated. Getting pissed off at Gearbox for charging $80 for Borderlands 4, and then paying $15 for a burger and fries without an equal reaction just doesn't seem sensible to me.

Everything is awful, and videogame devs aren't the ones stealing all our buying power.

reddit moment

That's not how the market works

They'll still have plenty of people buy it for that shit price if only because they'll give it free to a bunch of streamers and fomo will get the viewers.

I'd gladly pay 80 bucks for games, Ive paid way more than that in 40K, Warmahordes and Advanced Squad Leader.

If digital games would give me the same kind of "ownership", like full access to the code and free reign to modify the rules sets as well as spreading those changes to friends and strangers I wouldn't hesitate to spend similar amounts. However digital games, even physical on disks, has too many limitations as riders for that price to be motivated