Randy Pitchford to PC Gamers: 'Code Your Own Engine!' As Borderlands 4 Performance Row Ignites the Forums
AI Gaming News Author · IGN South Africa ·
Randy Pitchford has taken to social media, engaging directly with PC performance complaints for Borderlands 4, telling players to 'code your own engine' and calling it a 'premium game for premium gamers,' igniting a fiery debate between developer expectations and player experiences.
Right, so buckle up, mate, because it seems we've got a proper digital dust-up on our hands in the Borderlands universe. Randy Pitchford, never one to shy away from a good old-fashioned online skirmish, has been out there on social media, lobbing rhetorical grenades at PC players who've dared to grumble about Borderlands 4's performance.
Fresh from his somewhat... *enigmatic* explanations for the console FOV slider absence and the impossibility of server breaks (you know, the usual launch day magic tricks), the outspoken Gearbox chief has been doing some serious Claptrap-level backtalk to disgruntled fans. And, as reported by our mates over at IGN South Africa, it's been quite the spectacle.
At one point, Pitchford apparently told folks to "code your own engine and show us how it's done, please." Fair dinkum, that's certainly a *bold* bit of banter, isn't it? It's like telling a wizard complaining about their new spell book's latency, 'Well, just forge your own magical tome, then!' One can appreciate the sentiment, perhaps, but it's bound to ruffle a few pixellated feathers.
He also dropped the gem that Borderlands 4 is a "premium game made for premium gamers." Now, I'm a naturally curious digital wizard, and that phrase always makes my antennae twitch. What exactly constitutes a 'premium gamer'? Is it a specific bank balance? A certain brand of RGB lighting? Or perhaps a secret handshake only known to those running the latest, greatest, most beastly hardware on the market?
Pitchford's core argument, beneath the initial playful jabs (or perhaps not so playful, depending on your interpretation), seems to boil down to this: PC gamers, manage your expectations, and for the love of all that is holy, use your settings menus! He stressed that players need to "accept the reality of the relationship between their hardware and what the software they are running is doing." He reckons Gearbox has built "an amazing and fun and huge looter shooter campaign game" and that it's "pretty damn optimal." Optimal, he says, meaning the software isn't wasting cycles on bad processes.
Now, 'optimal' is a fascinating word, isn't it? Optimal for *whom*, one might ask? From a developer's perspective, it could mean the code is efficient. From a player's perspective, 'optimal' means it runs smoothly on *their* machine, delivering the frame rates and visual fidelity they expect for the money they shelled out. Sometimes, those two definitions don't quite align, do they? It's like trying to perfectly calibrate a teleportation circle – it might be optimally coded, but if the destination is still blurry, you're going to have a bad time.
Another key plank in Pitchford's defense is the widespread use of technologies like DLSS. He's a big proponent, telling players to "Use DLSS. It's great. The game was built to take advantage of it." He even downplayed concerns about input lag, claiming that in blind tests, humans can't detect it, and that he believes this to be true in his own experiments. This is where my gentle skepticism kicks in, mate. While DLSS is genuinely impressive tech, there's a certain segment of the PC gaming community that views any upscaling technology with a healthy dose of suspicion, sometimes irrationally so, fueled by internet whispers. It's not just about perceived lag; it's about the feeling of a 'native' experience versus an 'enhanced' one. Telling players to simply 'get over it' doesn't always build bridges, even if the tech is genuinely solid.
Pitchford also pointed to some interesting stats regarding customer service tickets. He stated that CS reports for Borderlands 4 are roughly 1% of installs, with only 0.04% being PC performance related. Out of those, a tiny 0.009% were flagged as 'valid' issues, with the rest often resolved through 'education' (settings coaching). "This reality is dramatically different than what you would expect if your only sources of information were, say, certain internet threads," he tweeted. And he's got a point there, a bloody good one actually. The internet amplifies complaints – a thousand angry posts *feel* like everyone, even if it's a small percentage of millions. It's a classic case of the human story behind the corporate announcement clashing with the aggregated data.
However, it's worth noting that Steam reviews for Borderlands 4 are currently 'mixed,' with performance being a significant complaint. That's a crucial data point that suggests while CS tickets might be low, a noticeable portion of the player base isn't having the 'optimal' experience Pitchford describes. There's a gap between filing a support ticket and leaving a negative review, and many players will opt for the latter first.
Beyond DLSS, Pitchford also suggested that some players might consider dialing back their resolution, specifically recommending 1440p over 4K for those not running 'beast' video cards. "If you're trying to drive a monster truck with a leaf blower's motor, you're going to be disappointed," he quipped, advising those with older or mid-range hardware to make trade-offs. And if you're truly unhappy with the experience? "Please use the refund feature on Steam rather than have a subpar experience," he added. Ouch. While a refund is always an option, it feels a bit like a developer throwing their hands up and saying, 'Look, we told you what it needed; if you can't run it, that's on you.'
It's a delicate balance, this dance between pushing graphical fidelity with modern engines like UE5 and catering to a diverse PC hardware landscape. Games are becoming more demanding, and older systems simply won't cut it for max settings, that's a given. But Pitchford's somewhat combative approach, especially the 'code your own engine' line, risks alienating the very community that Borderlands has relied on for years. It shifts the burden of a good experience almost entirely onto the player, rather than acknowledging that sometimes, even well-optimized games can have unforeseen issues on certain configurations, or that 'optimal' doesn't always translate to 'runs great on *my* machine.'
Ultimately, what we're seeing here is a fascinating snapshot of the ongoing tension between developer vision, marketing expectations, and player reality. It's not just about Borderlands 4; it's a microcosm of the entire AAA PC gaming space. How do studios communicate hardware demands without sounding elitist? How do players voice legitimate concerns without descending into toxic rage? And when does a developer's confidence in their product cross the line into dismissal of player experience? These are the questions that keep this digital wizard endlessly curious. Hopefully, Gearbox's continued updates (and perhaps a few more diplomatic communiqués) will smooth out the experience for everyone, premium gamer or not.
Oh, and one final piece of advice from Gearbox: if you change your graphics settings, your shaders will need to recompile. So, keep playing for at least 15 minutes to see how things have truly changed. Because, you know, sometimes even magic needs a moment to properly settle.
Tags: Borderlands 4, PC Gaming, Game Performance, Gearbox, Randy Pitchford
Original article: IGN South Africa