In this thread I don't want an argument on whether or not modding is creative or game breaking. I would like a discussion on Gearbox's latest patch. It has been pretty clear there has been a LOT of whining to patch modded guns such as the double prefixes and the scorpio guns, far to much to have slipped under Gearbox's radar. Would this imply ( in your opinion) that Gearbox encourages modding and leaves it to the maturity of the player to decide whether or not to use them in an unfair advantage? (please pardon my grammar. I just don't see the need to correct everything) ShadyCake 14:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Gearbox probably didnt realises that people could still create modded weapons after the patch. People are always experimenting with the game and that is why there are still some modded weapons. I also think that Gearbox would rather focus on creating a new DLC or somthing like that which gives them money. As for modded weapons being unfair you can always kick people that use them or ask them to use actual weapons. You dont have to play online.(though it is definitly more fun!) You can also prepare against modders (coughcough Vengence cough). One more little thing, the reason why so many people are still playing borderlands is because of how thay can mod. They are happy when they can create an invisible gun that the game allows.Fuzzy Darkness 15:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Almost nothing you said there makes any sense. Juust sayin'GT: ConceitedJarrad XBOX360 15:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
It's nonsense that GBX is unaware of mod'ed weapons after the patch, especially since the most egregious mods have come out since then. BUT, I do agree that GBX is making a business decision to focus on other projects than continued BL support that brings them $0. EA is infamous for this and, so far, GBX is following the EA pattern with BL. -- MeMadeIt 16:37, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
GB have given up the ghost in the fight against modding, I'm afraid. A Lonely Nomad 17:14, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with shadycake's comment at the end - Gearbox doesn't care about modding, and it's up to the player to decide whether to use them or not. I only use legit guns, but I know people who only use modded stuff... It's a personal choice. Uberorb 
I just wish they'd fix the issue with the Loalty Mods. One that stemmed from their efforts to try and stop people from modding that ultimately limited everybody's access to an awesome feature. ~L3377MA573R
Yeah - if they were gonna try to address modding, they would have addressed the loyalty mods too. Maybe the'll include a more thorough patch with the DLC. Heck, maybe they'll make their saves unreadable by some means and give us a workbench lol WhackyGordon 22:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Some GBX Business Manager has asked the developers - "So how much to fix the mod'ing, Loyalty mods, glitches"? Developers say - "$$$". BM says - "oh Hell NO!". Again, it's the $$$$, not whether GBX cares or not about it. -- MeMadeIt 00:01, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, if only every game company was like Valve. Also, with the most recent patch, the fact that it's 1.3.1 rather than 1.4 shows that it's a minor patch; they could still be looking to fix it in the future (maybe they haven't found a suitable way to stop mods without affecting legit players yet). Bukkithead 
00:21, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
It would be cheaper for them to just patch the save-file editability, and if they included features in the DLC that functioned as a replacement for the mechanic, they'd be able to pay for the coding for the patch with the revenues from the converted modders buying DLC and playing legit. Plus a DLC has a lot more filespace to fit a complex patch into, whereas a minor patch like that was probably intended to be a quick-fix for a common problem that's impeding gameplay more directly. WhackyGordon 00:49, August 7, 2010 (UTC)