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.
I think Biowares biggest problem is EA. Let's hope, that Larian can stay away from those big companies.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
