They went for BG3 and the Forgotten Realms (and some folks here seem to forget that BG is just a city in the Forgotten Realms, not the setting itself, the Forgotten Realms is the brand), because they are huge fans of D&D, BG, and the Forgotten Realms, they didn't need this IP, they have their own hugely profitable IP, they WANTED this IP for the love of it.
You're of course free to hold to your rosy view of Larian, and I'll hold to mine.
But you are dead wrong about the name Baldur's Gate. Yes it is just a city in that setting, but in the context of videogames it is the legal title of a videogame IP franchise. So a game titled "Baldur's Gate 3" is by definition linked to games titled "Baldur's Game 1" and "Baldur's Gate 2", whereas it is NOT linked to games titled "Icewind Dale" or "Neverwinter Nights" even though those games are also D&D Forgotten Realms games because those games are not part of the "Baldur's Gate" IP franchise. So this discussion has ZERO to do with a game being a D&D game or a Forgotten Realms game. It is about placing this game within the "Baldur's Gate" franchise.
The Forgotten Realms IS the IP, it IS the Setting, it IS the Franchise, it's like saying Andoria is a seperate franchise to Vulcan and Trill. It's not thr first BG named gane that wasn't about the Bhaal Spawn even. Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance has that honour.
Look I agree they shouldn't have called it BG3, if only to save us from headaches, but WotC likely told them to.
We know it won't use 2e rules, it's the much better 5e rules, we know its not about Bhaal Spawn (although Bhaal is likely in it), we know it's well over a hundred years later, and so far it sounds extremely likely to be TB.
