Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What was purpose of Early Acess?

Honestly, I don't think this is accurate. A lot of the changes made by Larian are clearly meant to make the game more intuitive and easier to understand without actually knowing D&D. That's good, and important. People shouldn't need to consult forums or books to figure out why or how something works, by and large. So making changes that feel consistent and like they make sense separate from the 5e rules is 100% logical to me. It keeps people from being frustrated and encourages non-D&D knowledgeable players (and I'd definitely argue the CRPG community is larger than the D&D community, for all that there's undoubtedly overlap) to actually play the game.

If the Pathfinder games, which are some of the most complicated RPGs on the market in terms of understanding the mechanics and intricacies of the builds, can sell millions of copies then I think people can understand 5e racial attribute scores. I sincerely doubt this change is going to sell any copies whatsoever, it may be a positive change for many people, but it's not something that is going to suddenly get them to change their mind in regards to buying the game. If they really wanted this to be a 100% positive change, they'd offer options to use the old rules, or at least change it so that humans/half elves/shield dwarfs aren't nerfed in their attribute scores.

If BG3 made what Pathfinder made in revenue, Larian would go bankrupt.

I'm not convinced you read the whole take, since you immediately went into exactly what I described with...


...when you went off against an imaginary poster who "expects obligation" (i.e. literally the "ur entitled" refrain) here:


This is not even remotely related to what I said, except where it repeated what I said here (while pretending I didn't say it):


I apologize if you simply misunderstood it, but I can really only conclude here that you stopped at the first line and responded to what you assumed the next few paragraphs were. I didn't even complain about BG3 for crying out loud, I just described the similarities with the development process of DOS2 and BG3 and hoped that the end content landing would be better for BG3. I supported what I said with what I know about the industry and the internal production structure of different parts of games within (and outside of, in the case of contractors) game studios - this goes beyond "not listening" to feedback and includes industry pressures that make post-release responding to feedback in certain areas difficult, whether it's listened to or not.

You responded by lambasting me as disingenuous for being too expectant about my own BG3 feedback - which I did not discuss or mention. For the record, I am pleased with most of the direction, but I absolutely understand why some people expected an early access experience from an infrequently updated kickstarter demo that Larian labels "early access", and are displeased with the difference. It isn't bitterness to describe a discrepancy between a product's reality and its label, it's just a fact. If that label has changed so that it is more applicable to Larian's quasi-kickstarter model of demo-funded development (something that Larian is honest about and does share with many "EA" business models - but is by no means the defining feature of "EA" models), then that is a change in the definitions of these (admittedly, rapidly evolving over my years of gaming) terms that I was not aware of. In that case, this isn't me misunderstanding, this is my understanding being outdated - which, if it is, that's fair enough.

My understanding was that "EA" is a content release model, not a business model, and is characterized by the focus of development generally being on updating and adding to the already released content. This is different to Larian's model, which I described as "kickstarter with a demo", where proceeds from a paid access demo that is not the active focus of development are used to fund the development of unreleased content that is the active focus of development.

And if I was unclear, I'm not saying Larian's model is inherently bad - I'm saying it takes a risk with its lack of pre-release feedback for the unreleased content (since it is difficult to respond to it after release, especially in certain areas of game production) and does not operate the way "early access" titles (again, as I currently understand them) do. The accusations of "foul play" were meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but... tinged with a bit of cynicism for what I've seen from marketing departments in this industry.

And hopefully that's no bad blood between us, the community's going to be wired with anticipation until release and for some time after I expect, so I don't fault you for reading a bit too much of your concerns about what I might've said into what I did say. Excitement can get us all a bit jumpy, and I'll admit I started writing this response before I'd finished reading yours. Putting words in my mouth is about the only way to legitimately aggravate me, but I should probably try to first assume it was unintentional.

I think far fewer people care about the racial ASIs no longer being fixed than the amount of people who are glad that every race is now at least somewhat compatible with every class. And yes some races lost out a bit there with now having fewer points and no much in terms of other bonuses but I think Larian are still balancing that aspect so it should be fine...I'm sure the races lacking will get a little extra when all is said and done.

ok

"Letting every race get 17 in a main stat will definitely help sell copies"

No, it wont, because the so called 'casual' won't be paying attention to this type of news. They are 'casuals'. They don't care that kind of stuff hence the term 'casual'. Every person arguing for and against these stat changes are 'stat nerds'. Because we do care for whatever reason.


"People shouldn't need to consult forums or books to figure out why or how something works, by and large."

Yeah, they should. Learning how a game works - how anything works - is part of the process. I fact, that's one of the best parts of playing a new game.

If you can play a game without thinking without challenge.. what's the point of playing a game? Just read a book or watch a movie.

This is a 100 hour turn based 5e with 1000s of rules... racial stat changes doesn't change that. In fact, it makes it more 'complex' for the casuals because it is another layer of choice for them. And, it basically makes choosing your race LESS important. Making choices less important in a game touted for its choices is not good. It is also why respecc is lazy game design for the most part.

Ah well.. tis is life.

Not going into the whole wall of text. You basically suggested they falsely marketed their games and pointed to Divinity Original Sin 2 as another example. And you generally came across as upset you didn't get what you expected.

But more to the point. You understand wrong. Most AAA games treat "early access" as no more than a preorder incentive or a server stress test for a multiplayer game before full release. Most of those games give brief access to the full game shortly before release but they generally take zero feedback...nothing you say or think about it will impact the final game because that's not what it's there to do. Those are just marketing gimmicks, only there to get people to preorder the game and play a bit early. Larian announced from the very beginning that BG3 early access was purely going to be Act 1 of the game and they very specifically said that early access was there to collect player feedback to help with the development of the game. They never promised access to the full game before release, nor that you would get it as they develop it, or anything else. If you expected anything else that is your fault because Larian were very honest, clear, and upfront about precisely what their early access plans and intentions were from the very beginning.

As to what I was driving at about the feedback was when you said this:


Because in spite of what you said earlier this particular part really sounds like you are mad about them not listening to your feedback...going as far as to suggest that everything they said were deceitful lies to manipulate first impressions and reviews. You should remember most copies of DOS2(which you specifically pointed at) sold after the full launch of the game, and most reviews of the reviews for that game came after its full launch. To suggest that the game's overall Overwhelmingly Positive rating was manipulated with a bad early access is disingenuous and extremely disrespectful of Larian.

The point of the EA was $ pure and simple. So that ongoing BG3 sales can finance the development instead of Larian having to spend the money upfront.
As you can see on the many changes introduced right now without ever touching EA shows that it never was about getting feedback.

Okay at the risk of sounding like a complete and total hypocrite who participated in the bashing as much if not more than anyone else here:

Is anyone getting a little bit sick of the negativity levels in this thread? There's a surprising amount of toxic feelings of betrayal and of being ignored for a game we haven't even seen yet. Sure, there are some systems issues that we don't like, but we don't know they didn't listen to the rest yet.

The pathfinder games can't even break into hundreds on steam.

The last stuff on them I saw was wotr just hitting 1 miL at the start of 23. So. No they can't sell millions.

You completely misunderstand. The early access and the final game are different builds...even just Act 1 in the final game will be about 33% larger. Which they won't release to avoid releasing more spoilers than necessary. And most of the heavy rebalancing is done late in development before release. Most of the development is made up creating all the maps, characters, mechanics, and ensuring they work correctly. Once the final game is mostly in one piece that's when the final bug-fixing phase and final balance considerations come into play. They didn't just put something in early access to sell copies and keep people occupied. They have genuinely listened to a lot of feedback and a lot of changes were made because of player feedback...there were 9 updates to early access where it was clear they implemented a lot of changes based on player feedback.

Their public is much more niche and they don't compromise their vision and the ruleset to appeal to a more mainstream audience.

We're off to an auspicious start....


It's not a suggestion, if the label is incorrect, it's incorrect. If that incorrectness is profitable, the incentive is to leave it. That's just business.


And are they accepted to be accurate labels, or do players consistently decry them as abuses of the "early access" label? Because from "no more than a preorder incentive or a server stress test" it sounds like you don't think "a preorder incentive or a server stress test" is really "early access". That doesn't change what the label means, it just means it's often misapplied. Other people lying doesn't make Larian correct. It's a completely different discussion.


If you'd read the "whole wall of text" before responding to it you'd know I literally said Larian was honest about the business model, just dubious with their use of the "early access" label.


Not once, in any of my posts (seriously, please read them if you want to respond), have I suggested that Larian implied they would accept more than feedback for the pre-release content, or that they would (or even should) release more. The most I did was suggest that lacking feedback for release content can negatively impact its quality and that the model that results in that risk is not really "early access", but a demo. Once again, I have even said explicitly that such a model is not inherently a bad one - and that I'm generally satisfied with the direction of development.

You would know all of that if you'd read the posts before replying to them.


Did you also not read what was in the spoiler? The one right after that quote? That whole paragraph was satirically poking at what some people said about DOS2 reviews, because it is so obviously ridiculous an accusation. It's also got nothing to do with the feedback discussion unless you include steam reviews into "feedback", and, for what the average steam review looked like when DOS2 released... I do not. They've improved enough over the years that I think now they're usable, but DOS2 released to the steam reviews of... six years ago. The most publishers were doing at the time was looking at the aggregate scores, and that's not exactly actionable feedback.

You are reading something into the text that isn't there to retroactively justify an emotionally charged response to incomplete parts of it. You aren't even reading through what you're responding to, though at least you admit to it. I am really, really struggling to assume you're acting in good faith here, especially after the "Larian never promised you more pre-release content" bit. If you want to respond to someone saying Larian did promise that... please find someone who's actually saying it first.

Perhaps I should have specified that when I said "Pathfinder games" I meant both of them combined. I'm aware of their sales figures. Point is, 5e is about as simple as it gets by CRPG standards. No one trying to play these games is going to get confused because certain races have certain attribute scores, even something like Skyrim has different base skill levels between the various races. I do not believe this is a change that will cause the game to sell any more than it would have previously, the "casuals" simply won't care about these types of tweaks.

I've seen more accusations of these feelings of betrayal than actual feelings of it, but that's probably my own biased perception from people piling onto responses to my posts that obviously didn't read them. It's hilarious in a way - I haven't actually given Larian feedback for BG3 to feel "betrayed or ignored" about.

I'm "betrayal-proof", lol.

My most pressing concern about release is getting mods to work on Linux, and that's pretty much it.

However, I do understand if people came into this thinking "early access" meant the thing they'd have access to would be actively developed, and that simply isn't the case - its price funded active development of the rest of the game, which was happening while the demo itself was occasionally updated but largely left alone. Now, that said, I do tend to agree with Darth_Trethon here (even if his suggestion that I had such expectations was... silly):


Regardless of any procedural issues you may have with Larian's... let's say "understanding" of early access, Larian has always been honest about what it actually entailed for BG3 - so you should have figured this wasn't really "early access" by now. There's really nothing to feel betrayed about, just a misunderstanding of what was being offered. The mislabeling doesn't help, but if an apple is labeled a banana and you accuse it of betrayal only after you've picked it up, taken a bite, and started chewing... that's kind of on you.

1. Money ( Your using a name that is going to draw major attention, cash in quick.) Besides it never hurt to have more money

2. You and WOTC have already determined this is going to have to be epic!! So the creation time is going to take a bit.

ok thats it thats all I got.

Yeah at this point you're just doubling down not knowing what early access is and are just insisting they mislabeled it rather than accepting any fault of your own. Early Access has traditionally been a means for developers to get extensive testing and feedback during a game's development long before the corporate AAA industry normalized the term as a means of driving preoprders. Also the accusation of retroactively justifying something comes across as disingenuous from someone trying to dissect every sentence and assume conspiracies of greed driven or malicious intent...especially when it comes to Larian. Really comes across as projecting.

They don't "comprimise?" Tell that to the half backed back end of wotr and the quarter baked gold drsgon path.

Also the mythic paths were all about breaking the ruleset.

''Tell that to the half backed back end of wotr'' I don't understand what you mean.

''quarter baked gold drsgon path'' The golden dragon path was a buggy unfinished mess I agree, but how that invalidates what I said?

''Also the mythic paths were all about breaking the ruleset'' So basically you're saying BG3 is more faithful to 5e than PF:WOTR is to Pathfinder?

At least you didn't denied the fact that Owlcat games have a much reduced target audience, neither you denied they don't try to appeal to mainstream audience.