Perhaps I'm just not reading it correctly, but while I think the basic point that other (smaller) RPG developers shouldn't try to make BG3 on a tighter budget is right, I don't think it's all that interesting. I don't think studios like Owlcat or Tactical Adventures, or even Obsidian (though they might get some more Microsoft money if BG3 does well) are going to make that mistake. And I think there will continue to be a demand for more independent RPGs and gamers will set their expectation for such games appropriately.

The studio I most hope will be re-evaluating their life choices should BG3 turn out to be the success is BioWare, for whom I think BG3 gives a kind of alternative vision that shows you don't need to abandon interesting and complex party-based combat and a high degree of customisation of your player character just in order to make enough money to tell an immersive story with high quality animation and voice acting. Of course, I take people's points that BioWare's position in the EA stable is restrictive, and both they and EA would also understandably concerned that there's a unique combination of factors that mean that even a BG3-clone couldn't be pulled off by someone else, but I hope they're at least considering whether they might have some lessons to learn from Larian.

"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"