[quote=dwig] Put very bluntly, no non-D&D AAA cRPG will ever have (even the possibility of) BG3-like sales success. Never ever.
This would mirror that all other Infinity Engine games back then sold but a fraction of either BG1+2... despite being based on D&D, btw. Regardless, FromSoftware just as well as Larian generally have shown that in the AAA space you don't need to completely change your games in order to expand audiences. That's one of the best things to happen in the bigger budget space to me in the last couple years. Plus: It's "but" D&D. D&D more recent even tanked at the movies. What were to happen if somebody would pair CRPG + LOTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter?
This is full circle, by the way. Back in 1998, CRPGs were proclaimed bloody dead. Diablo, hack&slash and action adventure-ish games such as Lands Of Lore were king. Interplay forecast practically zero revenue for the UK for BG and hoped to just break even in general. Clearly Bioware didn't care. They were confident enough to sell enoough to warrant a sequel and keep making games. By the early 2000s, that changed. Bioware wanted larger audiences, but questioned the very type of game they were making. Both Kotor and even more Jade Empire were games of a different mould already. And that's continued since (with Origins as the distraction -- but even that was simplified some, moreso on consoles).
This culminated in Mass Effect, (successfuly) aiming at the big cover shooter crowd with every sequel. The Old Republic, meant to be a WOW killer. Inquisition, the semi-open world game in the wake of Skyrim. And Anthem, but let's not go there. Instead of confidence, there was a fear that the very games they were making weren't destined for more. Instead of setting trends, as they did in 1998 by resurrecting the CRPG, they followed them. And that's started way before EA. Enter Larian Studios and CRPGs being relegated back to the indie space... tbf, when BG3 was announced and that it was to be of AAA project scale, I had immediately suspected them to change much more about their recent games than "but" giving them a cinematic coat of paint... Such suspicious has taught me the predictable history of the big budget RPG. In fact, there was a part of me that saw BG3 as a Witcher / Assassin's Creed clone already, just set on the Sword Coast this time. Whatever's the most popular at the moment+BG=bingo. And even later interviews didn't do much for me, like: "Missing isn't fun!" https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/
As of PoE3, I'd like Obsidian to scale it back as well. Clearly a part of the disappointment was to level up the investment both in full VO as well as everything else (this game for sure doesn't look like "ass" ). Which means the game HAD to sell significantly more to please management as much as PoE1 did, let alone more, as was the aim. Deadfire was a bet and that bet didn't pay off for reasons unknown (it may have well just been a case of releasing at the wrong time and with finite fanfare, as the game made a profit in the longer haul). That doesn't mean you can't make a PoE3 that is profitable as PoE1 though. Ideally, the success of BG3 may lead to a somewhat higher crossover audience anyway. Like people going upon finishing: "Is there anything else that's sorta like this?"
