Ultimately, Larian is going to make these decisions based on what they think will make the best game for the largest number of people. Some people outside of that majority will be displeased, as the game will not cater to their needs. What IS the best thing for the largest number of people? Hard to say. Do any of us really know? This is why we discuss it. This is why Larian discusses these things in-house as well. Early Access is a special time, as this is when Larian can nail down all of these questions of "what is best?", using a million extra testers to help them.
Games have rules for a reason. They have limitations for a reason. A game with no limitations would not really be fun for very many people, for very long. I can make a new version of Chess, and say, "Hey, in this Chess, you can just pick up any pieces, any time you want, and move them anywhere you want!" But that will be a shitty version of Chess, and only small children will want to play it. Often times people think they want more freedom from restrictions in a game, but in fact, if they get that freedom, they end up finding the game less engaging, less rewarding, and less memorable because of it. Game designers are not supposed to just give people what they say they want, with no thought to the matter. They are supposed to figure out what is actually best, even if it's not what people are asking for.
I mean, there are tons of video games. And millions of players offering feedback and suggestions for all of those games. But developers ignore the majority of those requests. Because they know that the game will be better if they DON'T give everyone everything they think they want. (Or at least, in theory they know that. In reality, they might just THINK they know that, and mess it up. But that would be bad game design.)
Why is there no button to automatically kill all enemies in a second? Why is there no button to just gain a free level up whenever you like? Why can't you just fly through all of the walls right from the start? Because those freedoms would ruin the game. Rules and restrictions MAKE the game. Chess is chess BECAUSE I can only move my bishop in a diagonal line, not wherever the hell I want. And D&D is D&D because of many, many restrictions that combine to make a SYSTEM. If we just start throwing out any boundaries and say "Do whatever you want, and players can just govern themselves" then we no longer have a coherent game.
What's the right call regarding how much people can rest in Baldur's Gate 3, and whether or not it should have some kind of cost, and how the game should be balanced around that resting system? I have no idea. I'm not the one getting paid to figure that out. But I can offer my opinions, and so can everyone else here. And maybe Larian will agree with some of us, or maybe they will see our ideas as poorly-conceived ones and ignore them. Who knows? But in no way is the question "simple". In no way should they "just" do anything. There is a lot to consider, and they're getting paid to do that considering.
