So, the answer to my question seems to be "Not much". When I look at what we have now in game compared to what we had at launch, I can see a lot of changes that were implemented, and a lot of those came from here, or, at least, were discussed a lot here. So, the only real benefit would be stroking some poster's egos. That always feels good, I like it when people stroke my ego, but in so far as game development goes, I don't really want it, or need it. The end result will be something I like, and I really hope it is, or it won't. I don't need them explaining why something will or won't be changed, if I can play it, and see that it makes sense. A good example would be the "playersexuality" of the companions. I'm not a fan, but I understand why it's done the way it is, and I don't need a Q&A session to have that question answered.
I mean, maybe. We can't really tell without having a Q&A and seeing the result. Some of it would certainly depend on how well Larian answers the questions: are the answers fairly vague and not satisfactory, or are they detailed with at least understandable reasons?
It's dismissive to assert the only reason for a Q&A is to validate egos for participating in EA and providing feedback (which, fair, is partly a reason). But I'm also honestly curious about Larian's process and reasons, and I do think some of Larian's responses would lead to more useful feedback. And imo, many of the people who would get mad at Larian's Q&A responses are probably already miffed at Larian rn, so I don't think a Q&A would hurt much. It's likely that the mollified people would outnumber the people who get angrier.
