Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Time for Larian to Surface

What I would have wanted, or kinda expected to see in EA (now post launch) would have been rather involved - basically two versions of the game - a Stable and a PreRelease.

The first would be for the general playerbase (the players who just came to play, not to test) and the modding community.

The second would be for motivated testers to opt-in. Basically for people who've already beaten the game and who just want the latest thing on offer, even if it's still not yet stable.

There are probably enough BG3 players in this latter category to catch and help crush many bugs, just through casual play and regular reporting if there was a more fluid and convenient way to do that. Especially if it was directed periodically and less concerned with the surprise factor or spoiler guarding. Support tickets are perhaps too compartmentalized for that, making it harder for the testing player to cross check with other testers for known issues. Of course this is happening right now, but the issue is that is weighed down by all the other stuff, which would come under more general criticisms or feedback on the stable. If it happens in the same place at the same time, then it all just gets subsumed into one big maelstrom that's probably impossible to stay on top of. Just seems like something where it would be better to break off into groups, to make that whole process more expedient, while still safeguarding the general user experience.

It's necessarily a much smaller group of players than the general playerbase on that, but also still a much much larger group than whatever they could pull off in-house, probably. All those players would understand going into it that they are likely to experience significant bugs, perhaps game breaking bugs, and material that has not yet been vetted. I'm talking about stuff like bugs and the nuts and bolts. Story minutia or stuff that's more subjective is somewhat different. How I feel about Lae'zel as a character at plot point Z, or what I might want to see from her romance is one thing (it's perfect as is for me lol) but I mean stuff that's easy to spot. For example, the door of Lae'zel's cage just floating there, suspended in the air after her recruitment scene on the beach. Easy problem to identify, hopefully easier to fix, and if there's a conversation to be had about the other stuff, well then that gets taken under advisement - or tabled for the stable.

Basically 2 feedback gauntlets going at all times, with the Beta group scouting stuff out a few weeks in advance. Telemetry without feedback is only so useful, it doesn't explain the why of what's going on. Feedback without telemetry is pretty anecdotal and harder to make use of. To gather either is probably pretty tough. Discord seems to have alright systems now, but then the link from the launcher takes us here, not there, so there's that.

The difference with an opt-in scheme is that then you can make it into more of a quest, essentially to gameify the process of hunting down bugs and breakers and to do quality control with people who are chill doing that, or even eager for it. Keeping it light. When I swooped this game on spec to participate in an Early Access that's what I thought it would entail, or at least for people who wanted to go under the hood with it a bit more. That's what the EA should have been for me, but the EA was only the first Act of the game, because they held back and wanted the surprise factor thing. It made a certain sense I guess and clearly worked on some level, but we see the downside of it now. Any little kink along the way makes much bigger waves, gets picked up by reviews and journalism, with every misstep or goof on full display. In EA it gets let slide, but out of EA people are way more critical. If they did the open Beta thing, then, when a Beta player does encounter a bug, instead of just being annoyed by it, feels more like helping to improve the game. You can do the same thing with the general playerbase, but then you get all the sour grapes, and it takes longer anyway. By walling it off somewhat, and only pushing out the patch after it's gone through the beta grinder, that preserves a stable version at all times that regular users/modders can rely upon.

I think it would be better to do it that way. There are maybe a couple reasons not to do it that way, but I'm not so sure. Sawyer was talking about one caution in the Pillars kickstarter post mortem, that by relying overmuch on the most enthusiastic and ardent players (the sort who are willing to go through the saw mill like that) that the feedback will necessarily skew a bit differently than what they'd receive from the average players. I'd guess people are unlikely to do things like sign up for discussion boards too, unless they are either very dissatisfied with something, or elated by something. But then they wouldn't have to weight it all the same ya know. Another big reason not to do this I guess might be the fear that those testers then somehow spoil whatever surprises are still in the works. Honestly though, at this point, does it really make sense to do that? Cause the game is out now, and the trade off there for guarding the grail secrets doesn't really seem worth it to me after a certain point - I mean if the result is that the average player is being confronted with stuff that borks their ongoing campaigns every couple months. Or if their MP experience gets tanked, or a streamer's stream crashes out in the midst of a hotfix being delivered or whatever. That's probably more annoying for the average user, than just avoiding spoilers by avoiding whatever Pre-Release and focusing only on the Stable build. Also they could make the Beta users agree to disclosure agreements of some kind if cats getting out of the bag is the main concern. Games journalists are not going to be all citing these forums, or discord groups, or studio discussion boards, because those don't qualify as impartial sources. It's seriously debatable whether Reddit or Twitter should be treated that way either anymore, but that seems to be the main source for anything buzzworthy. Anyway, just make the point clear in the sign-up by saying stuff like no screens or hot takes or speculation posted outside the Beta, with a gag on it until the stuff is released as part of the Stable.

Disabling updates is onerous for the new user. The average player isn't going to do that. Modders might do that and players who use those mods, but they're more used to navigating that probably. It's sort of the reverse of what I'd expect for a release pattern. I think it's unreasonable to expect the general player base to get on board with an EA for all vibe, and to restart campaigns with every patch just to confirm whether its an issue with the save or an issue game wide, cause that's probably what it requires right? Although some people would happily do that, it's better if people are volunteering instead of getting drafted into that process by default. The devs don't have to be all super responsive to every little thing in order to still pull something like that off, they just need to set up a framework that allows it happen in a way that's more efficient and centralized than it is currently. Right now it all feels very decentralized and scattershot. I think a monthly roadmap plan is more likely to stick than a quarterly or yearly plan, which would probably include too much forecasting and speculation. It should be more like "Hi everyone, we're getting ready to push out the new patch next month, it's ready for testing in the Pre-Release..." Perhaps with a Gazette entry at the same time to preview what's coming down the pike, or what sorts of feedback was toplined for the last patch. That stuff could be aimed at the more general audience and games journalists. I think the disc is what makes it officially official, so whatever is in that is the baseline and the thing that just stays available in that state perma style.

This is just guesswork cause I have no idea how they'd actually set that up. It seems like a pretty complex thing to do for a game on this scale, like unfathomably complex to me really, so this is just my impressionist take from a enthusiastic player's perspective. If theory crafting why they are doing it the way they are, the only thing I can come up with is that somehow they want us to see the jank. That the jank somehow indicates that they are still working on stuff and building it out, which was fine in EA if a little exhausting, but that's not really the best look after red carpets rolling out. I think the best play for me would be if they announced an Expansion/Toolset legit, and set up an EA for that if they want, to learn from the last EA and apply whatever lessons to the next. New material for the current thing should just get tabled while they focus all the zots on making it stable. Stable enough so that the disc can stand the test of time, and be the go-to for the modders. Ultimately I think these boards are going to be for the modders, because those are the peeps who are the most motivated, and they have been paying attention pretty much the whole time. The Mods on nexus are an expression of the EA feedback actually put into practice, cause there are mods there that do most of the things that have been suggested over the past 4 years, but they are also more decentralized. So anytime the main game updates it's like a scramble to get the house back in order in a timely fashion. But then if it was pushed out as a preRelease first, they could also get ahead of things. Would be nice