Statement like that makes me seriously doubt that it can even run on a PS5 which I was thinking about getting it for but this is kind of changing my mind
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
149 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
32686 readers
513 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure you saw, but borderlands ceo says you're just a pleb and get better gear scrub or don't buy their premium game
"Borderlands 4 is a premium game made for premium gamers. Just as Borderlands 4 cannot run on a PlayStation 4, it cannot be expected to run on too-old PC hardware," he posted on Saturday. "This is not a game made to run on 10-year-old PCs… if you're trying to drive a monster truck with a leaf blower's motor, you're going to be disappointed."
250GB install sizes plus an additional 100GB shader caches. This is what the future looks like, buckle up.
For a cartoon game.
With the aesthetics they have, this could have been playable on the steam deck without anybody noticing the difference in graphics.
Why do they need 2-billion-polygon rocks only to flatten them all out and make it look like a cardboard cutout? It's ridiculous.
managers have insane priorities
It could have looked like BL2 with a few upgrades and more physics and that would have been fine.
BL2 even had some PhysX simulations when using an Nvidia card for particles and effects, so between those and running at higher internal resolutions and framerates, it’s already better than the new one in some areas.
Nah, this is just one horribly unoptimized game.
250GBs? Cries in DSL
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system OS: Windows 10 / Windows 11 Processor: Intel Core i7-9700 / AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Memory: 16 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / Intel Arc A580 Storage: 100 GB available space Additional Notes: Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system. Requires 8 CPU Cores for processor. Requires 8 GB VRAM for graphics. SSD storage required
Holy shit a 2070 for minimum specs?!!!!
Game doesn’t look good enough to justify a 20 series card, probably has mandatory raytracing but holy fuck that’s bad
Why buy this absolute disaster of a game?
Because it's fun and it's the only game series me and my dad still play together.
Because the previous ones were great and this one has glowing critics reviews. For me though, the system requirements are too high, so I'll buy and play it sometime after a PC upgrade.
I'm going to have to try to remember that everyone has different taste... But good God I can't be the only one who despised the dialog and "so randumb holds up spork!?11!" type humor in BL2?
It seems like everyone else loves it. I just found it incredibly grating.
I'm not big on comedy in general, let alone when it has toilet references, so those parts were hit or miss.
BL3 was just as much (if not more) of a mess - people shouldn't be surprised, especially with Randy telling people they should be selling their souls to have the privilege of playing this game.
I played through BL3 on a 2016 PC and it was OK. Not perfect, but perfectly playable. Looking at that PC Gamer article, I don't even understand the complaint of being unable to run the game at 120 FPS. Seems like an unreasonably high bar. I'd take 60.
The game is running at less than 40fps, they’re using the 3X Frame Gen mode
Granted, that’s at 4K and seems to alse be with most of the settings cranked to “Badass”
Its initial launch on Epic was a mess for multiplayer, and there was plenty of documented issues for PC.
The story was probably also a sign to come for the movie that would release after....
If you asked me to recall the story of any of the games, I'd not be able to. I don't think people play the games for the story. It's just a fun looter shooter, especially in co-op, which is how I played BL3 around its Epic launch. Revisiting my technical review of the game from then, yeah, you're right, and I documented various reports of issues, though there were quick fixes deployed or workarounds available for the biggest issues. That seems commonplace in the industry though.
Great? The first one was OK. Then it kinda went down hill from there.
I mostly agree. I'd say they went uphill though, but so did every other game, but even faster. Each game improved some things, but the competition improved much more. They've been coasting off of name recognition ever since the first game.
My favorite is BL3. It made shooting feel less like cardboard compared to most games and had a great cast of characters.
But when did you play it? Release BL3 and updated/optimized BL3 are two completely different beasts(Reddit link warning).
Same as games like the Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk, fans playing it in release year vs 2025 are gonna have completely different experiences. And BL 3 release was also messy, albeit not as bad as this. I was there.
Modern gaming, why expect anything more?
Avoid UE5 games, they are all the same. Underperforming messes.
It's mostly not UE5 exactly. UE5 just let's devs turn on features that are performance hogs easily. Squad, for example, just upgraded from UE4 to UE5 but they took their time and did things in a smart way (like not using Lumen), and performance increased for a lot of people, with much higher detail too.
UE5 isn't the issue. It's devs who turn on all the features they can and ignore optimization because "the engine just handles it." It's got some really impressive technology, but it'll ruin your game if you let it.
Squad has massive problems on UE5, it's got all the visual artifacts and blur (even with no AA on?) that you would expect from a game on the engine.
What? Some systems have worse performance, primarily if you don't have enough VRAM, but artifacting and blur? What do you mean? Sure, there's blur with TAA/FSR/DLSS, but that's always true and cam be toggled.
You cant toggle it, or you get loads of shimmering, you cant use it because you get loads of blur. There's ghosting even without AA. This is the exact problem, there's no good implementation if you are relying on TAA and/or DLSS as anti-aliasing. Squad suffers it, the same as any UE5 game.
I'm still not convinced the engine is the problem. Maybe it's not helping, sure, but heavy reliance on upscalers to achieve nominal performance is probably a bigger issue.
That, and shipping before proper optimization passes is probably more profitable in the short term, so publishers will push for that.
UE5 can run well, but all the defaults that Epic suggests devs use are really quite bad for performance. They improve performance on horribly unoptimized scenes, but actually optimizing the scene would allow a 10x performance improvement at no reduction in visual fidelity. But devs don't tend to optimize much anymore because those Epic-suggested defaults "take care of optimization".
Yes, the engine could be used well, but it's used for it's out of the box "good" graphics, lighting and such. Which then yes, devs slap on shitty DLSS, frame generation or whatever at the end to reach a somewhat playable framerate (or "framerate number" should I say with the way things are going. Fuck you Nvidia).
No developers are going to spend ages tweaking the engine to get good performance when people will just buy the game regardless. I've yet to see a good performing UE5 game with good fidelity and I probably never will because it's entirely reliant on TAA as it's deferred rendering as standard. I hate seeing developers abandoning their own in-house engines just to swap to shitty UE5. I know, I know, it's all about the money...
The engine is a plague, as every developer is seemingly moving to it. Chasing "upgraded" graphics that no one asked for. All games consolidating onto one engine is very bad.
It's good for movies, bad for games. Give us good raster performance back, no TAA, no upscaling, no frame gen.
no TAA
I would like TAA to be available. I think maybe a more reasonable ask is "let me toggle TAA".
I'd agree if TAA wasn't just complete ass.
I partly agree with you in that everyone using the same UE5 engine is bad
But I really don't agree that deferred rendering techniques are inherently bad. Maybe they cause negative incentives for developers that lead to worse games in the long run, but you might as well blame capitalism at that point
I like techniques such as TAA because they do work better as anti-aliasing in my experience. I've multiple times had the choice between TAA and traditional AA and I think TAA simply does what it sets out to do better. Upscaling and frame generation are also nice to haves as optional features people can enable. Sometimes I use them, sometimes not. But it is bad that companies use these techniques as a crutch, indeed, but I don't want to see them gone
I really dont mind solutions like upscaling, but it should be for people with older hardware, so they can run newer games better.
Instead it is used as a crutch by developers to gain some "performance" out of their poorly made game (Not blaming devs individually here, they are all probably overworked on titles like this and they wont have much of a say in what tools or timeframe they have). You are right, it's a capitalism issue too.
TAA just looks like I have grease smeared over my monitor... the only acceptable AA for deferred rendering is SMAA honestly, but I still think it's a misused technique in most cases, I have only seen a few games look good with it. Games with it usually have lots of visual flaws, that they hope TAA smears over. But then you just get a blurry game.
I'm becoming more and more convinced it is the engine honestly. It is probably harder to optimize and devs not having enough time to do so if I had to guess.
in 3 years PC build guides are gonna be like "You need 3 drives in your gaming PC. One for the OS (this can be small, its not important), at least 2TB for games, and another 1TB for the shaders for those games. Oh and you'll need a top of the line Nvidia card because even a dumb UE5 asset dump game like Notary Simulator won't run on a budget card"
Or just have DLSS run the game at 480p, but upscale it to 4k! You'll never notice the difference we swear!
For AAA games, that might be the case.
Uh, Jesus Christ...
So what I’m hearing is that it’s not even worth trying to play on a Steam Deck 😂
I did it for the hell of it, I think it had 60-80 fpm after the opening cutscene, literal slideshow experience.
There's people on proton db claiming higher frames, but like 18-22 fps, def far from playable
Funny thing, that. It's not a well-optimised game. That's the problem.