Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 potential sales and what this means for D&D and CRPGS

I think most people are perfectly fines supporting a good game at full price. Especially if it's from a studio they want to see more of.

I hope BG3 has all the success it deserves!
I don't care what it means for D&D the TT property but I hope other CRPGs continue to expand on including more reactivity and choice freedom in their respective games.

"There HAS been recent good news about new creative leads on DA4, some victory for remaining Bioware veterans in the rumored internal struggle, and the development of and investment in some promising new talent. I WANT DA4 to be good. I really really really do. But I'm worried that EA has other plans.[/quote]
Fair enough, but for me these are not necessarily bad or problematic things. I am of the belief that even the most talented people eventually become stale and start losing their creativity. So for me it's a good thing to have turnover of people at RPG studios and for them to bring in new talent. The people who made DA:O were also "new" at one point, weren't they?"


It's not about being new. It's about being good. Bio.was new when they made the bg series. They were good. Nu bio sucks. They keep.losingnbit by bit what made bioware successful in the first place. Not surprising since the bio creators no longer run the company that is now just a division.

Nu bio ea doesnt even like what they do. The docs actually loved their work, and it showed in their company's work. There was passion. There us passion at bio now. Maybe dome of the new ones will step up with da4, but I highly doubt.

I have issues with bg3, and even feel larian doesn't really like dnd or bg but they still clearly enjoy making games. Bg3 looks like a fun playable game. The new bio stuff is just pure crap.

The attraction of the TES games has always been that you could write your own stories, but that also meant you had to be willing to do that. To write yourself into a world that provides few constraints and thus, also few guidelines.

Quite a few games have provided memorable moments for me, but in the TES games they are different because they were entirely of my own making. In Morrowind in 2002 or so, I had decided I didn't want to deal with all the random monsters in the long run, and worked tirelessly, dealing with a ton of exactly that in the process, until I got myself a permanent flying enchantment (which sadly, was made impossible in the later games). Then I set out on *real* exploration tours, eventually to follow the main quest. One day as I floated across the landscape I had to camp for some reason I don't recall, but there were monsters all across the landscape, so I landed on one of the pillars of the Ghostfence - unreachable for ground-bound monsters - and camped there, in a storm. Now tell me, is there any other game that's not a TES game, where something like that would've been possible? Where I have that much freedom to engage with the world as I want? I love Fallout New Vegas and like to tell everyone who doesn't want to hear it they should play it if they want a good Fallout game that's still somewhat playable. But it implements a different formula than the TES games, in spite of the superficial similarities.

And then, of course, there are the mods. Don't like Oblivion's abysmal progression system? Mod it. No more permanent flying enchantments? Mod it. Don't like the vanilla player houses? Lose yourself in the countless mods on offer before you return to the game.

I see all the flaws. People don't buy these games because they don't see them, or don't care. They buy them because these games hit a sweet spot for them.

Meanwhile, yes, I agree. Things have moved on since Skyrim and TW3 has shown everyone that you can make a city that actually feels like one, and have a large open-world game where still almost everything is of noticable technical and artistic quality. People will expect better today than back in 2011, 2004 or 2001 and be less tolerant of the almost hilarious bugfests the TES games have usually been at launch. But I suspect the formula will still work. Whether it works for Starfield, or whether Starfield even attempts to implement a similar formula, I don't know. That one I will buy simply because it's an RPG with an SF setting. It may not hit the sweet spot, but I'm reasonably certain it will be worth paying €60 for.

BG 1 and 2 were great games in late 90s-early 2000s and Throne of Bhaal was mediocre even then, carried only by the legacy of it's predecessors. If released today BGs would easily lose to Pathfinder WotR or PoE. Compare it to Fallout 2 which is a pure masterpiece due to writing and would've been a great game even if it was released today despite outdated graphics.

Don't tell me you really believe that. Fallout 2 is almost unplayable these days. You need to be very tolerant of the clunky controls and the pixel salad you get if you attempt to scale it up to a point where details are visible on modern monitors. It is unfortunate, yes, since I still count it as landmark game that in some respects, hasn't been surpassed after 25 years. But no, it would certainly not be a great game if published today. It would be a game slammed by almost everyone but a very small niche demographic. You could make a game with the same rules and the same dialog system and writing quality and it could be the basis of a great game, but controls and visuals would need to be seriously different in order to make it even acceptable. And even some of the writing, while generally very good, is barebones compared to what people would expect today just because storage space and memory did matter a great deal back then but are almost irrelevant today.

I agree! I was speaking of people who for some reason are unable to afford $120 to buy both games this summer/fall. They can wait and play them later. Thus, there is no need for conflict between fans of the two franchises.

In answer to the original post:

There are much simpler games with a 'pay for content' or even 'pay for progress' mechanics that probably make more money than BG3. Unfortunately I don't think big, high quality games like BG3 is where the biggest money is. Purely guesswork of course since I don't know the numbers. I think the motivation for making these games comes from something else than just making money, although getting return on the investment is a condition of course.

All in all: The success of BG3 may encourage game companies to invest in more such games, but it will not be the only factor.

Bertrand Russell’s foremost anxiety in his old age was that his greatest years of philosophy were long behind him (he was right).
I hope you’re right. New doesn’t mean bad; experienced doesn’t mean good. I don’t think anyone want there to be more bad games. I hope it’s good and the studio can get back on track.

Bg series wouldn't lose to PF. First of, PF only exists as it does because of the BG series. Second of all, BG series is better - espicially BG2.

FO2 is awesome skso. Whoever bashes it is mistaken. Along with BG2, it is easily a top 5 rpg ever. Completely playable game, and crushes pretty much every modern game.

The FO and BG series are classics for a reason. They are the best of the best. Period.

I doubt BG3 is gonna have much impact on D&D.

It allready does.

Do you work for WotC or Larian? And if neither, how would you know?

Well you can check the steam chart.

If there's one consistent thing about wotc it's that they like money. And BG3 is money.

Can you buy D&D via steam? Is that a thing?

As George Takei would say: I read!

I dunno why would i need to work in either company, just to see something so obvious.

Just look around how many people had no idea about DnD ... and now they do, and they gain interest, are learning rules and after they will be done with game ... some of them might search for tabletop experience.

If such expanse of fanbase is not an inpact ... i dont really know what is.

“Might” is the important word here. Playing a computer game and diving into the Table top would be quite a big stretch. Not unthinkable, but I don’t think it is an obvious transition. More likely that such players would start looking for experiences like BG3 and turn to the wealth of other RPGs - some WotC licences, most of them not. Or they might not - and wait for next Larian release, and refuse to touch anything else. I am doubtful that people who love BG3, love it because of D&D.

I suspect that the typical computer game player is not all that interested in playing a PnP RPG. I have encountered a couple (literally just a couple) of people at my friendly local game store in exactly that position. They played some computer game (probably Dark Souls) and had the notion that playing D&D would be a similar experience. They were disappointed and it's easy to see why.

Thats why there was the word you put in qote marks.

I can only talk from my personal experience, and from my surroundings +/- 12 people expressed interest to join/return to tabletop after playing Early Acess.

I do love both and many of my fellow PnP player play both too. I don't know, if we count as the typical computer game player though.