Borderlands 4 has made a splash this year with a very in-depth State of Play and a number of key details being drip-fed by its developer, Gearbox Software. There's good reason to believe it could be one of the biggest games of the year, especially for fans of the series. It is one of the few triple-A first-person shooters releasing in 2025, that we know about, at least, outside of Xbox's The Outer Worlds 2, so that's pretty important for those who feel abandoned among the swathe of excellent RPGs, third-person adventures, and turn-based titles like Clair Obscur: Expedition 33.

However, as much as many are anticipating Borderlands 4 to be one of the biggest FPS games in 2025, a recent post from the CEO of Gearbox and Borderlands series creator, Randy Pitchford, has irritated fans and sparked a huge amount of debate surrounding the recent controversy of video game prices increasing. While on a surface level, Pitchford's response comes across as tone deaf, it could be an indication of the future of the gaming industry, and that we're potentially coming ever so slightly closer to the second video game crash.

Randy Pitchford's Response To Borderlands 4's Price Is Disappointing

It Is Completely Disrespectful To Fans

Ever since Nintendo took the plunge and announced it was increasing the cost of its first-party games to $80, the floodgates have opened. We're still in the infancy of this rather frightening storm, with many cautiously asking developers of titles what they'll do vis-à-vis pricing. Naturally, with Borderlands 4 on the horizon, a fan asked whether Gearbox had any plans to increase the price to a whopping $80, to which Randy Pitchford delivered a controversial response that has resulted in a lot of backlash from fans.

Speaking on Twitter, Pitchford told the fan that not only was pricing "not [his] call" despite being the CEO of the company, but that "if you're a real fan, you'll find a way to make it happen." Pitchford then explained that back in 1991, he paid $80 for Starflight on the Sega Genesis, despite working a minimum wage job. Frankly, it is the "real fan" part of his comment that naturally angered everyone, as it insinuated that if you don't pay $80, you're not a fan while simultaneously disrespecting anyone who may struggle to afford $80 for a single game.

There are lots of Borderlands fans angry at Pitchford, myself included, for these comments, largely because of how insulting they come across, but also because it feels somewhat indicative of the wider industry's perception of these price hikes. Many cite the need to increase prices to meet higher production costs, but few have seemingly taken into how the financial struggles of everyday people may sour them on increased prices for what was once a relatively accessible hobby.

Pitchford isn't the only one to have said something like this. Speaking to CBC, Nintendo's Doug Bowser explained that Nintendo is aware that "there are some people that may not be able to afford [the Switch 2's] price point," which is why they "wanted to make the other Switch platforms available." He was ostensibly saying that if you can't afford a Switch 2, there's always the original Switch, not unlike when the former head of Xbox, Dan Mattrick's infamously told people to buy the Xbox 360 if they didn't like the Xbox One's connection requirements.

Developers Need To Be More Selective With The $80 Price Tag

Not Everything Deserves To Cost So Much

Of course, at this point, it feels like $80 games are here to stay, and that is, in some cases, a necessary evil. If increasing the prices of certain games means that we get a marginally better experience, then it may be worth it, such as in the case of GTA 6, which is rumored to cost $100. However, not every game will offer a marginally better experience than what we were previously getting at a $70 or even $50 price tag, and that's where the problem lies, especially with something like Borderlands 4.

For context, I was relatively Borderlands 4's inherent issues, coupled with the fact that it seemingly has still not fixed major problems, such as its skill trees, make me feel like this is probably a step up from Borderlands 3 in a number of ways, but likely not enough to warrant the extra cost. I may be wrong, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but Borderlands has never been a franchise, and I doubt that will stop with Borderlands 4.

Even beyond Borderlands 4, there are other games that will cost $80 that I'm not convinced will be worth that much, such as Mario Kart World or the TOTK and BOTW remasters. Of course, this is all purely subjective, as the value I put on certain aspects of games will be different from what everyone else does. However, to think that Mario Kart World or even Borderlands 4 costs $20 more than Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 or even $30 more than Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, both of which are very likely to win GOTY, is utterly absurd to me.

It is also worth noting that both of those games have been considered commercial successes - as well as critical ones - by their developers, even despite their lower price tags. Of course, both games likely cost a lot less to make than Mario Kart World and Borderlands 4, but then that is a further issue with the industry. Indies and AA games have managed to be critical and commercial successes despite their smaller scale, lower budgets, and cheaper price tags when compared to a lot of AAA games that do poorly due to inflated budgets and result in massive layoffs.

If $80 Games Are The New Norm, The Industry Could Be In Trouble

People May Stop Buying Video Games Completely

There is a concern that the rising cost of video games, as well as the nonchalant and disappointing response from certain developers like Randy Pitchford, could lead to a disastrous result for the gaming industry. While I'm sure there are a lot of people who are more than willing to pay $80 per game, there are likely just as many, if not more, who simply cannot afford to at launch. It is true that development costs have been negatively impacted by inflation and rising tariffs, but ordinary people's wages have not been increased to reflect that, creating an imbalance.

It is all well and good to increase the prices of your product, but if no one can afford to buy it, then you're likely to go out of business.

It is all well and good to increase the prices of your product, but if no one can afford to buy it, you're likely to go out of business. That was partially the case with the 1983 video game crash, which saw consoles outmatched by PCs that became significantly cheaper. People realized that they could buy a PC that ran better games and did more than just play games for less than a console, which resulted in many console developers going bankrupt. I'm not saying that will happen again, but it certainly feels like we're heading in that direction.

If developers charge $80 for every game, and console prices continue to increase, then where is the incentive to buy a console over a PC, especially as platforms like Steam see a lot of games get heavily discounted over time. PCs are even more affordable now thanks to handheld PCs, which offer a Switch-like experience with the added bonus of having PC functionality. This article, for example, was written on a ROG Ally almost immediately after playing a bit of Halo. ROG Ally or other handheld PCs may not be as powerful as a PS5, but they're certainly getting there.

I do wonder how sustainable charging $80 for games is, at least while people continue to suffer through a financial crisis. If developers are more sympathetic and selective about which games they charge $80 for, then there may be hope. EA recently announced that it wouldn't be charging $80 for every game, and it is infamous for trying to make as much money as possible. I hope Borderlands 4 isn't $80, not just because it likely won't be good enough to warrant it, but also because I don't want it setting a bad precedent that could end in disaster.

Source: Randy Pitchford/Twitter, CBC