You know what really worries and concerns me most?
The comments we see in virtually all of their interviews that reference their play data collection and what it 'obviously' means.
For example - in that interview, the speaker from Larian talks about how they could look at the play data and see that few people were ever using buffing or debuffing spells like bless... and drawing the conclusion from that that people didn't like or want buffing spells and that they wanted spells with impact and damage instead.
They just... see some data and then decide what THEY want it to mean, and they seem to do this everywhere.
Never mind that people don't use spells like bless right now because it's functionally impossible to use effectively, given how the AI will always abuse tricks to automatically break your concentration, and specifically give high priority to to concentrating character - that all they need to do is knock you down to break the spell. Never mind that debuffing spells are equally impossible to use effectively right now because you'll often get no effect from them when the enemy saves out at the start of their turn, even after failing the initial save, and is never detrimented at all. Never mind that saving throw spells have multiple layers of mechanical changes making them weaker, less effective and harder to use than direct attack roll spells, in the current system... Never mind that they've lowered ACs, increased hit points and given free advantage all the time for everyone - we don't need Bless as much because of their system changes that detract from the strategy element of the game...
No, no, no... obviously we're not using buffing and debuffing spells very often because we don't *Want* to use them... that's obviously the reason, of course...
This is a really insidious underlying problem that I've seen pop up in the background of every public interview and every community announcement they've made, and it's really bothering me.