Yes, and I mentioned changes made during EA that addressed players complains and benefited the entire game, which you quickly dismissed as “they would happen anyway” because they were inconvenient.
No, I dismissed because you have no proof that they are directly related to EA itself.
It is merely speculative that they are related to EA.
It is third time Larian has done EA like that, and Sven has been saying how helpful feedback from EA was in making the game better.
Yes, and we have clear evidence that shows that EA is at least beneficial for the specific act that gets the special treatment from EA.
But if player data is so helpful, how would not having it at all make all acts better? If internal testing isn’t enough to test two acts on their own, how would not having access to EA data, somehow make it easier to test all three acts by internal testers only?
This EA system is not only made up of player data. It is also an extended development. Like, we literally know this. Act 1 alone had the same amount of active development time as Acts 2 and 3 combined.
Had they not done EA and put this extended development, they might have spent a more even amount of time on each act of the game (Thus, spending more time on Acts 2 and 3, allowiing more improvements to occur)
Of course, there's also the question of just how helpful player data might be, especially depending on your opinions/viewpoints (Like, player data lead to the changes to companions. Considered by some to be a negative change)
I can flat out disagree with your hypothesis and present a different viewpoint, without being required to have a proof before doing so.
Except you disagreed not with a hypothesis, but a statement of fact.
It is not my speculation, but an outright undeniable fact that we can be certain of only EA's benefit to the specific act that gets the special extended development treatment and player testing. Given the clear evidence of the literally 3 games that exist that show the effects of this development process and the lack of any certainty about the effects of parts of the game beyond the scope of the EA testing (I.e. We don't know if systemic changes would happen over the course of development, or if they were specific to EA and EA alone)
You disagreed with this statement of fact, thus proof is required to provide a substantial claim to the contrary. That is how statements of fact work.
Yes, disagree with my speculation (Which is merely a stance of "We don't know enough about the details of what impact everything had" - Which again, to do so would imply some sort of certainty on your part), but trying to deny a clearly factual statement without any proof is asinine.
Maybe you're not particularly clear on the statement, but it does NOT imply anything beyond what it states. It doesn't preclude the possibility of EA benefitting parts of the game outside the EA tested Act. It merely means that we can only be CERTAIN about its positive impact on the EA tested Act, because that's what we have clear evidence showing us.
Any notion beyond that, would start to be speculative arguments, something that I've actually refrained from asserting, due to the pointless nature of such things (I've merely raised points that *Could* be argued, of which there are plenty on both sides of the debate)
My personal view is one of a scientific view. I'd very much like more data to work with. Such as an aforementioned Larian title that DOESN'T use this EA system, just to see what actually happens and to garner more insight in to the benefits (Or lack thereof if the case may be) of such an EA system. That is my only stance on the matter, as I am curious as to the extent of the effects of such a system (Be they positive or negative).
Whether people have speculative debates with each other over what "Might" be the case is not my concern, but rather I care more about what is provably the case. As such, we can provably show that EA is "Overwhelmingly positive" for the specific act that is being tested, but anything else would require some clear evidence to prove it (Thus anyone claiming to have any certainties beyond this would need to provide receipts for their evidence)
