For a AAA game a few years in EA seems reasonable to me. It gives them time to implement feedback and make a great game.😊
I don't think many AAA games actually go into the EA process, so BG3 is an interesting experiment in that way - production and marketing wise. While technically Mount and Blade 2: Bannerlord has a bigger EA, it's pretty easy to tell that Bannerlord was never intended to be a AAA game (just look at the graphics and production), whereas BG3 clearly had the ambitions to be.
Larian seems to have embraced using the EA process a much for marketing as it is for production. It's definitely generated sustained attention throughout this period (and I think it's done a good job at showing the product and managing expectations), but we've also seen people (even in this thread), experiencing burnout from the lack of progress. We'll see how that all works out at the end of the day.
Production-wise EAs tends to work well for smaller projects because the feedback is much more manageable and focused (you really have 1 core audience), and is far quicker to apply (imagine deciding on a course of action with 3 people in a room vs. multiple departments across countries). I don't envy Larian's situation in terms of working through the EA process and mountain of feedback and thoughts - just take a look at this forum and the various highly passionate camps of people... you've got the 5E RAW Mafia, the DOS Legion, the "Original Games" Elitists and the "Everything is Okay" Gang all going at it, spawning 50+ page discussion threads that resemble the explosive final battles of anime space operas - often with good arguments from multiple sides too.
