Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Multiplayer Discussion Bg3 Multiplayer is Dead - the Opportunity has passed.

There has been a massive dropoff of multiplayer games both on the Larian Discord, and in general. Looking at the concurrent players it also seems that the number of concurrent players is also dropping off as well as people turn their attention to other games.

At this point it doesn't seem like this is something recoverable - or at least if Larian spends the time and money to introduce robust modding tools that it will be relegated to a niche group that utilizes them.

I am disappointed we didn't get better multiplayer.

I think not including a couple small self-contained Modules that showcase the multiplayer capability of the platform was a significant lost opportunity. BG3 as a multiplayer module is not ideal - it's too long, sprawling and has too many cinematic hours to be an effective demonstration of the multiplayer capabilities of the game. A good multiplayer module doesn't need VA, or a lot of cutscenes. It doesn't need a main character or a central narrative - it just needs a place, problem and possible paths to a solution/resolution. A good example would be something like The Keep on the Borderlands, but there are SO many others to choose from.

DOS2 had at least the GM mode, strong modding tools and even came with an Arena Module for multiplayer battles.

BG3 had none of that. Long term viability of a product rests in it's multiplayer capabilities. However, you have to introduce those capabilities from the get-go and support them continually. It's one of the (many) reasons Elden Ring had such a long shelf life.

Maybe the next game Larian makes with the 5E system will have the kind of tools needed to sustain multiplayer gameplay. I think though for now the opportunity has passed for that to be a thing for this game.

STUNNING oversight.

Who makes a D&D game without ROBUST multiplayer??

It appears to be one of those "ok we scored." Time to move to the next game. D&D titles always get screwed like this.

They are fixing some things but I have to agree, unless they GET TO THE MEAT AND POTATOES of what multiplayer needs, they just used the IP to score big numbers up front (they certainly did that) but man, what a gut punch for those of us excited about playing a multiplayer D&D game.

Im still holding out hope, but this is not looking good. What a moronic development decision to blow off multiplayer at game launch. Should have been THE most ROBUST multiplayer experience ever done... this is Baldurs Gate!

I agree that someone messed up. I know this because I cannot play with my daughter and my friend. But you have to understand something.

I my garden is a beautiful apple tree it always give delicious almost perfect red apples. But not all of them are perfect.

And I know this so I love my apple tree I also know that some apples I need to be take down and trow away with 21 str and tavern brawler feat.
Larian is a company with a lot of developers most of them are perfect apples. So don't dislike all of them. We don't know hou messed this up .
But one thing I know for sure I take care of my apple tree and I trow away the bad one. So that the good ones should not get infected by the root. And they are not testing a lot of fixes currently.

I also think that multiplayer issue is strongly related to the lack of difficulty. I have 3 friends that are dnd veterans. And we wanted to play togather. But after the first run all of us came to the conclusion that the game is to easy for even a solo single player experience. Why it whould be fun as coop?
And not all of us are playing on pc thats mean mods out of questions. Also @PactTactics stopped to play before act 2. The sayed it was to easy stopped to be fun.

I think they could get another crack at it, provided they release an Expansion that is mostly focused on that and a GM mode. Basically by using what's already here as a central hub/main campaign, but with modules attached to it that would lend themselves better to an MP experience.

Priorities there should be stuff like initial character customization and Import/Export character, so it's easier to create a unique looking character, or to quickly bring a character over from one style of play (SP) to the other (MP). I think an extended dungeon crawler like Durlag's that isn't super heavy on puzzlers and cinemascope, but organized more around the combat and the Monty Haul with all the classics there. It'd be nice to have something that alternates between inside dungeon oriented and outside/wilderness oriented to cover all the bases. I think the environments on that one should be designed in such a way that that the whole area is accessible, so not having a lot of places/platforms which one couldn't reach. Ropes and tethers, swimming, scouting, forestry, mountaineering, or skills and features like that, allowing players to reach the various platforms and spots that are visible more readily. More destructible and interactive environmental stuff that might lend itself better to teamwork or tandem flare.

Something like this would be good for an anti-climax in SP anyway, and maybe better suited for MP than the main campaign. Perhaps they could ditch the discrete camp concept entirely, and replace this with an in-world camp and a single pack animal to do the heavy lifting? That would allow them to scale stuff down and have it more focused, allowing us maybe to bring on characters in the follower slot for story delivery. Instead of having a big wagon train of camp followers, it'd be more about who was there with us in the thick of it. Might work better for an MP campaign structure, where waylays might be more thematic, while still allowing for a similar sort of functionality that we get from current camp scheme, just done via the pack animal.

It really looks like they sacrificed a lot of multiplayer functionality and support to get the game through the door faster and to support the single player experience. Even with a year of development work who knows if we will ever get the modding tools needed to build new content. If it happens will people even come back to the game? Who knows.

I mean, they did promise to provide *robust* modding tools *eventually* but what does that mean and how will it affect things if it's a year away? Was it really too much to ask to create some small scale modules for multiplayer?

Are you guys even playing this game? How is your completion rate?

No, but it has less to do with BG3 not being an online D&D toolbox, and more to do with me not loving the campaign. Even so, I am unlikely to play one game for that long - 120h is quite enough for now. But I don't expect to return to BG3 in a big way for quite some time.

However, I reinstalled the game as I might dip into BG3 this week - a good friend of mine has started his playthrough, and he is new to western RPGs and D&D so I might jump in for a session of two to see how he is doing.

I don't think this was ever going to be the type of game that a bunch of 'randos' would come together into games open to the public, and i'm ok with that.

If that's the experience people are looking for, then this just wasn't the game for them (and it was never going to be). Personally, I stopped teaming up with random folks online a long time ago (I've been playing online since the earliest days of dial-up), and now only team up with folks I know (and we're always bringing in new folks).

This just isn't the type of game that lends itself to completely random people coming together, and somehow agreeing on what direction to walk, let alone agreeing on what dialogue choices to make that doesn't royally screw over someone else's plans in the group.

I have a weekly game with my wife, nephew and brother. My Nephew has 4 other weekly games with other friends.

This is not a pug experience game but one you play with friends. This is not an MMO or such where you need people to play with, rather you want people to play with. Hence a coop.

Multiplayer is not dead, PUGS might be dying off but with friends it is alive and well.

Right, because it's either MMO or Couch co-op - there is no in-between. That's a pretty low-effort take on things Zentu. It's also stating the obvious - BG3, as a module is just bad for multiplayer. It also assumes PUGs - my Guild just didn't really want to deal with it. IRL friends who were just like "yeah, let's play Valheim instead".

They aren't wrong. Showcasing the capabilities of the platform was always the visionary point of view on this game. The actual game itself - as brilliant as it is - was always secondary and is very much a single player experience.

Not to mention, hey lets forget Neverwinter Nights ever existed or continues to have a robust multiplayer experience based on the factors I outlined - which Bg3 really lacks at this point.

Honestly, the most egregious is the lack of Modding tools which were promised but not delivered. We wouldn't have to rely on Larian to create multiplayer-friendly modules if those had been included.

This is the reasoning that made the last D&D game flop fail. I am saddened that a moderator, and I suppose the developers feel this way. You did not promote or design this game FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE D&D ONLINE GAMER.

You rented an IP and SCORED because you called it Baldurs Gate 3.

Remember Sword Coast Legends????? Same disaster for players because the game population purchased a different game than the publisher built/promoted. And the devs were blind and deaf to the playerbase. How is BG3 experience different for multiplayer?

YOU FORGOT GUILDS.
YOU FORGOT MULTIPLAYER.

YOU BUILT WHAT YOU WANTED TO BUILD, player community be damned and moved onto another game for the most part.

Where are the multiplayer features that the community has asked for FOR YEARS Zentu ???

Where are the multiplayer features that the community is asking for now???

Dont argue with the community that we purchased the WRONG GAME like you just did with the poster your responded too! That's BAD KARMA just like the Sword Coast Legends mods and devs did.

So let me make clear, I do not reply as a mod on this but as an old school gamer that has been doing computer gaming longer than a lot of you have been alive.

PUG gaming sucks for RPGs and always has. The concept of PUG gaming is awesome, you can meet new people and develop new friendships. The reality however seldom lives up to the potential. You usually end up with people that have a different playstyle or even just do not care beyond saying they are playing. The strength, IMO, of an RPG is the story and PUGs tend to not do well in story promotion during game play.

I am not saying that a PG group is always bad, there are always exceptions that prove the rule. However designing an RPG around the concept of PUG play is already done, it is called an MMO. The BG series and MOST CRPGs have been designed over the years with single player being the primary focus and then the addition of Co-op play added after. As for better multiplayer features, for sure they can, and I would love to see, be added. Easier character integration and item transfers. (Would work great for solo as well)

I would love to see a GM tool and other tools added to let players run their own campaigns within the system. Thought I doubt WoC will allow that considering they want you to use their system.

Also at no point in my post did I state people "bought the wrong game". I said that I do not think Multiplayer is dead and that it is easy to find with friends for a lot of people. This is not forgetting guilds. I am part of about 20 gaming guilds over various games, have run a number of them over the years. I am part of 4 fantasy guilds that all have active BG3 groups running. Sure we want to see more features but we understand that the launch of the game was not focused on the mini MMO scope and are okay with that. Our hope is it will be added later.

Finally there seems to be a misconception, the mods on this forum do not work for Larian. We are volunteers that give up some of our free time to police bad behavior and spent a lot of time trying to kill off the spam attacks on the forums. However we are also gamers. I have a few hundred hours in BG3 and play it a lot more than I should. I have been vocal about things in the game I think Larian screwed up and will continue to be.

"Right, because it's either MMO or Couch co-op - there is no in-between."




The Couch co-op on this game blows! Hoping for a fix soon, it's a far cry from DOS1&2 days. Sorry to go off topic, don't mind me!

Hum, yes indeed, the game loses players when they have finished it. Did you expect BG3 to be a GAAS designed to be played forever? BG3 even has better player retention than Elden Ring, so it is doing tremendously well.

Well in my Opinion Not Just the Multi but the Game it self is Dying really Fast for me..
since 3.0 became unplayable i already had to gave up on the game becouse of that.. kinda of Shame
and the Endings.. Jesus dont gave me a lot of reasons to go back..
they need to improve on that and act 3 asap.. or this game will be done really fast.

You should look at the data. Bg3 has had a steeper drop off in the same time frame as Elden Ring.

Elden Ring has been out since Feb 2022, and still has about 60k concurrent players a day on Steam.

I don't think Bg3 will have that kind of player base in 1 year. Not without better multiplayer.

As a side note only 15% of players have finished Bg3, and it looks like most people are quitting somewhere in Act 2.

Not a comparison, but interesting to note only 38% of steam players finished Elden Ring once. Only 8.7% of players went full NG+ and grabbed all the achievements and endings. Damn, it feels good to be a gangster.

You are SO wrong, I don't even know where to begin...

First of all, what makes you even think that every game needs to be a multiplayer game? Where did you get that ridiculous idea? I can't play story rich games with strangers, I just can't. I am so happy there finally is a good story rich solo game out, AND IT HAS COOP! What else do you need? Why does everything need to be monetized into MMO elements? Go play Diablo or Destiny if you like that, and please let solo enjoyers enjoy this game. Not everything needs to have multiplayer elements. The worst part is, you talk like your opinion is fact, and even attack a moderator and the developers about this lol. Blinded by your own passion, you think you know everyone's needs. If this is not your game, fine, nothing wrong with that, but please don't force that multiplayer crap into every game. You have zero proof that people want that crap in every game.

1. Nobody said EVERY game has to be a multiplayer game.
2. Nobody is asking for an MMO here. This is a core problem with you absolutists, you can't seem to see anything but single player or MMO. Neverwinter Nights wasn't an MMO, it just had Robust modding tools that let people create their own campaigns, and worlds. There were arenas, there were entire Towns with surrounding areas that were built around core rules and enforced strict roleplaying - these worlds had between 20-a few hundred concurrent players depending on server/network capability.
3. The core game module, which you call Baldur's gate 3 is very much a single player experience and that's FINE. It can be played multiplayer but it's not really friendly in that way.
4. What we are asking for here is what was promised and was in DOS2 - the correct robust multiplayer tools that would let US build these worlds/campaigns. WE would host these environments and invite players from our guilds to them.
5. It would be nice if Larian provided a multiplayer friendly module or two, or a few core starting areas for modders to work with to build campaigns around. Not holding my breath on that.
6. This would have ZERO effect on your single player experience.

Also what is your argument? Multiplayer already exists in this game, it's just incomplete.

1. Every game needs to be a multiplayer game? Where did you read that in my post? I was excited to hear a new Baldurs Gate was coming out with the modern tech, and was promoted heavily as a single player experience and a multi player coop experience. Right here on the official mobos FAQ section exclaims: “Yes, the game offers a multiplayer mode that focuses on cooperative gameplay. You can team up with your friends or other players online and embark on exciting co-op adventures, tackle challenging quests together, and strategize as a team to overcome formidable foes. Experience the game’s immersive world in a collaborative multiplayer setting”

Swing and a miss. We did not get that.

2. Why does everything need to be monetized into MMO elements? Go play Diablo or Destiny? I made no arguments that BG3 should have been an MMO, or more like one.

3. you think you know everyone's needs. I have a thread posted in this very section ASKING THE COMMUNITY what THEY FEEL needs to be added or changed to the game's multiplayer functionality to make it better for THEMSELVES and their groups. Never would I attack a dev or moderator, especially one that's doing this gig for free. Its time consuming, I've been there myself for another D&D title, Neverwinter.

But I DID challenge them and hold them to the fire... and gave them a very real example of the last time I saw something this happen. It did not end well. I want to see the game not only do well, but FULFILL the hopes of millions who had high hopes of playing this game with guildies, friends and families. The multiplayer experience is a clusterbunk of poor design and just cries out as an incomplete stranded aborted mission. There's a problem here. Its not being addressed with fervor.


4: "dont force that multiplayer crap into every game. You have zero proof that people want that crap in every game." Oh boy. So you came to the multiplayer section of the BG3 mobos to volley against multiplayer mode and anyone who wants to support "that crap"?? What are you a field general for Ronald McDonald's Happy Meal Brigade?! LOL!

Sorry man, please read the comments in its entirety and think of a good reply before you type.

Oh I can completely respect that Zentu! I'm 53, been my way around all the Infocom titles such as ZORK on my Commodore 64, 128 and Amiga. Add to that any D&D title you can think of that came after, the TSR/SSI Gold Box titles like Pool of Radiance, Dark Queen of Krynn, Curse of Asure Bonds etc, Dungeon Master, Sierra titles like King's Quest, Eye of the Beholder... you get the idea Im certain!


Most people I spoke to in the years leading up to launch was that they were hoping for a Baldurs Gate 2 experience with a MODERN multiplayer capabilities! This is where the ball really got dropped by Larian. I recognized the signs well before launch on that this game might be trouble as Larian UNDERESTIMATED or possibly even ignored the desires of a D&D online gaming community was yearning for an authentic D&D feel.

Then the game promotion for multiplayer mode should have been scrapped. With the money this game costs, I expected Larian to go all out and was let down as many more saw it the same way [/quote]



With all due respect Zentu, dead assumes that multiplayer was alive in the first place. Most guilds have passed on this game. The playerbase has spoken. Some changes are being made and I completely respect that.


Very cool. We were also aware that they had to nail the single player mode, but man did they screw up MP. Badly.


Yeah, this comment here gets my full respect. I was a volunteer mod for Cryptic / Neverwinter. Its a thankless job we do/did do out of love for the game and gaming community and the hope that the devs made a great game. Hell maybe even enjoy the backend and swing some rare swag in appreciation for time spent on the forums making it a better friendlier place!

Really? I have three groups that meet with every week for an hour or two of BG3 Coop. We have no trouble jumping in game together and have great fun. How is this a swing and a miss? Maybe not a home run, but at the very least a solid standing double.


BTW while you may not realize it your tone in your posts are coming across in a condescending manner. Please try to work on that a bit.