Why would it make a difference if the game is in EA for a year or two? Sure, waiting can be agonising, but it hardly matters once the game is complete. It’s better for the game to be half-baked now, so it can dazzle reviewers and audience once it is ready. “BG3 was great 2 years ago, but look at it now!” Is a far better headline then: “the game that is well documented to be good has released.” If BG3 EA was poorly released, then sure, but that was never the case.
I'm not sure if the Early Access wasn't poorly released. From what I recall when it first released there were a ton of Steam and GOG reviews ripping the game for the state it was in... and the responses to them were largely "Should have read that the game was Early Access" or "These people don't understand what an Early Access game is".
I know when I first played BG3 I only got about 3-4 hours in and then hung it up. I wanted to wait for patches and fixes until I got back into it - then I did and so far I have loved it.
But I think one of the dangers is burn out or a negative connotation with the game being established for people. As a completely anecdotal example I have two friends who played the game that have lost all interest in it. One of them lost all interest because it was a "buggy mess" when it first came out. The other thought it was ridiculous the cut scenes weren't done/polished and that the story/characters weren't fleshed out and now thinks it is just a flop.
Obviously this isn't everyone or perhaps even a wide range of people. Maybe this forum isn't a good sample since the people here at obviously interested in the game. But it seems like exposing people (the general public of most people - who casually play games) to a half-done game for an extended period of time (2+ years) may have negative consequences. I imagine that is why most games haven't been in Early Access for 2+ years.
I'm also not saying it is a good or a bad thing to do so. I'm just curious about the general perception.
