I agree, Elk. Except I don't understand why Wizards (and Larian) would decide to take this path, because as far as I know the numbers simply do not support the claim that co-op RPGs will actually keep up steam for all that long.
I mean Larian thing is Coop RPGs, and D:OS2 sold better then it singleplayer competitors. WotC wouldn't hire Larian if they weren't interested in that kind of RPG for Baldur's Gate3.
Are DOS and DOS2 currently pulling in big player counts in co-op? If not then where's the long term win here?
I don't think so, but there is no monetization in D:OS1&2 - so whenever people continue playing it for long time after buying, or even play it for more then 5-10 hours is irrelevant from business perspective - the only money Larian made for those were initial sales, and those sold better then Pillars or Kingmaker. If "coop RPG" will ships more copies (or will ship a copy and the couple extra copies for coop buddies that will get bored and abandon campaign 1/4 through on top) that a financial win.
EDIT: There is a reason why Bethesda is reselling Skyrim over and over again, and why they tried the abomination that is Fallout76, and tried to monetize mods - making a one-purchase, lengthy, replayable experience just isn't a good business practice nowaydays. Not that I would put Larian in that basket - while I dislike their creative decision, I am still convinced they are creative decisions - I don't think greed has much to do with it. They want to make interactable RPGs which have strong multiplayer component. That's absolutely fine, even if I am somewhat cross that they use BG IP for that.
