I'm okay with the idea of committing to the party after Act 1, although it's going to be interesting to see how Larian manages to cram all the companions into that one act without it seeming forced. There are several reasons why I think it will work well:
I just finished Wasteland 3 which adds new companion choices all the way through the game, even up to around 75% of the game being finished. By that halfway point, I've already settled into combat strategies for my companions and it's hard to integrate a new one as a replacement. Especially if they're auto-leveled to match the current party, which may be a mix of skills and attributes you wouldn't choose for them.
Again using Wasteland 3 as an example, and other games work like this too -- you sometimes get a side-quest as you move through the game that's designed around one of the companions. You ideally want that one in your party to get the full dialog and best outcome. This can mean re-hiring one you've dismissed just for that quest, then dismissing them again afterwards.
This feels incredibly "gamey." If we have to commit to the party at the end of Act 1, Larian can just block off all the quests for companions you're not using. We'll never see those awkward notices about "be sure to have Companion XXX in your party" when receiving a new quest notice. Any companion quests will be smoothly integrated for just your current party.
So I'm not against the idea, I'm just wondering if Act 1 is large enough to allow trying out all the companions so we can make a decision at the end. Of course it's easier if you go into the game with a fixed idea of the kind of party you want, like a classic D&D holy trinity or whatever. That makes it easier to decide.
