Did AAA Devs REALLY Hate Baldur's Gate 3?

[@olchum7605]

BG 3 didn't set a new standard. It dug up the old gaming standard. Releasing a full functional game without a cash shop and day 1 DLC's

[@via_negativa6183]

Absolutely correct it reminds me of old bioware games with modern graphics.

[@ramonandrajo6348]

True.

[@sakaki8989]

I mean, the final fantasy games used to do that.

[@river559]

@@sakaki8989 Key word; used to. Halo was the same way, and look at infinite lmao

[@bmwg35]

Bingo

[@Chewma-o9k]

I would pay Larian another 59.99 just for an expansion if the quality is this good. They didn't nickel and dime us, they gave us a FULL game.

[@mikechua9560]

I've bought the game 3 times already ... all 3 of them for my friends ... my g/f has bought it twice one for me and the other for her ... :D

[@heretustay]

i plan on buying it on PS5 when my next paycheck hits, and i'm already 150hrs into my pc save 😅 Larian deserves all the support imo

[@heretustay]

@@ramonandrajo6348 you are such a sad person

[@ramonandrajo6348]

@@heretustay Whatever you say, Nintendrone. XD

[@ereviscale3966]

​@@ramonandrajo6348your vaccine was activated yesterday, now you are going to become a soyboy

[@shirox11]

There are things in BG3 that should be standard #1 it respects your time. #2 BG is not bug free, but the devs have been quick to squash as many possible, multiple times. #3 it offers you a complete experience without having to pay extra and doesn’t nickel and dime you with stupid micro transactions. I really don’t think expecting this from full priced AAA games is to much to ask for.

[@AvaaSlays_Swiftie]

You’d think it wouldn’t.

[@edwardpaddock2528]

It’s just a shame it’s such a bad game, that takes a steaming dump on the D&D lore.

[@MrFunkyJon]

nani?@@edwardpaddock2528

[@lunacae18]

care to explain?

[@a_troll_]

@edwardpaddock2528 as someone whose been playing d&d their entire life, read every forgotten realms book ever published, and started with 1st edition I gotta say this is possibly the dumbest comment I've ever seen. Forgotten Realms lore is malleable and has been changed, tweaked, destroyed, revived, and rewritten over and over and over for literally decades. It is not set in stone. Each edition changes things, each author changes things, each game designer changes things, each and every single GM changes things. I'll also remind you this game is set in a multiverse of what if's where God's literally cross the dimensional gap for shits and giggles or exist in 300 universes simultaneously.

[@twiggsherman3641]

Not holding back content for later DLCs, not adding micro-transactions, not releasing in a state that can be patched to working, not adding battle-passes. All of these things are direct threats to most of these developers.

[@MyBeebles]

Direct threats to the shareholders roi is what it is. Most game developers just wanna make good games

[@RocketPunches]

This wasn't even the point of any of the people that were the focal points of this. Also this started with a tweet from an indie dev who makes tiny games, but you'd have to care about games at all to actually read discussions of them instead of just fabricating shit whole cloth. I'm sure BG3's a massive threat to Airport For Aliens Currently Run By Dogs, the microtransaction, battlepass laden AAA behemoth it is.

[@twiggsherman3641]

@@MyBeebles you clearly didn't see the video from Tim Cain talking about modern developers turning a couple hour job in to 4 weeks.

[@wolfang_]

My only cincere hope is that more companies will realize marketing designing is not that fundamental to build the whole game upon it. a toxic design pattern in my opinion, and soon -hopefully- more AAA or AA titles will realize making finished and great games make more meaningful banks, other than some spend it all schemes.

[@caster269]

⁠@@twiggsherman3641It was even worse. The employee said he’d have it in 8 weeks, Tim said he could do it in 45min and explained the pseudo code, then in response the employee lowered it to 4 weeks. Meanwhile Tim was dumbfounded thinking his explanation would have at most changed to end of day. 😂

[@Telleryn]

It always frustrates me when they talk about Larian's 'unusual position' of having the experience and tools to make this game, Bioware, Blizzard, and Bethesda have been making RPGs for how long now!? Larian is a very young studio by comparison, only really hitting their stride in like 2014.

[@blublubblub]

It's the CAPITAL, my dude, THE CAPITAL. JFC. How many times do people have to point out that if you get the money from a publisher, they own you. THAT'S HOW LARIAN'S IN AN UNUSUAL POSITION, they get to call their own shots. Experience, tools, none of it means anything if you can't EAT AND FEED YOUR FAMILY WHILE YOU DEVELOP A GAME FOR YEARS. Liquidity is a pretty important tool, you know. Just as important as the computers you develop on. It's not sufficient to be independent to succeed, but it's certainly necessary to implement your personal vision, which will certainly collide with one aspect or another of the microtransaction/live services mandate from publishers. Unless you like those, of course.

[@TWlNKS]

⁠@@blublubblubPublishers could simply ask for games to be made as well as BG3.

[@reddove17]

Not all companies keep their developer teams through the years, so you may see the name eg "bioware" but it has little to do with 90s/early 00s bioware

[@lcmiracle]

@@blublubblub Oh good, more money = worse productivity, got it That industry bullshit, that bullshit that deserves not a single lick of sympathy. If this is what a company has to choose to fatten their CAPITAL, then players should simplely choose not to support these bastards Then, and only then, would captial understand they don't own anything but a dividend

[@srdjan455]

Larian has been in the business since 1996, and Blizzard doesn't make RPG.

[@I_am_ENSanity]

Whether they like it or not, this is the standard we should expect from AAA studios with 100's if not 1,000's of employees that spends 10's - 100's of millions of dollars.

[@Goldfire345]

Absolutely

[@wabajabatrektoe]

I couldn't get past starfeilds horrible writing after playing only half of act 1 of bg3.

[@birkinsmith88]

They've shown it's possible that a studio that specializes in a thing and can do that thing really well can do that thing really well when allowed to and given the resources. It's not rocket science, but it really is to the ones higher up with all the money and power.

[@mattwo7]

What AAA studios need to do is branch into smaller specialty studios. Sega did this in the past but because of a combination of the western arcade scene dying out and basically the repercussions of all the bad management decisions before that which lead to them falling out of the console race, they consolidated them. Some of the teams like AM2 and Sonic Team still exist but they are no longer separate studios from Sega and Sonic Team has been a pale shadow of its former self for a long time now and only recently started to regain its footing.

[@mattwo7]

Of course if AAA studios did divide into smaller studios, they wouldn't be able to do mass layoffs as easily without killing off most of them within a couple of years like Embracer Group's acquisitions, so it probably wouldn't happen.

[@marloforreal]

"People too often look at the fruits of labour and not the labour itself." As a customer paying the full price, I think that's all I really need to care about. I'd want a complete game, unless given the option to pay a fraction of which is completed.

[@AtakenSmith]

My thought exactly lol! @@FrozenFacade

[@pandoranbias1622]

Its a Marxist worldview, that's it.

[@WhatWillYouFind]

When someone makes a statement like that in good faith "Eric Barone talked about and released updates for SDV BEFORE it even launched and did an interview a long time thereafter" I feel the empathy THROUGH THE GAME. It amounts to gaslighting and I feel for the D4 developer because his boss handed him a sh sandwich and no amount of labor could fix a poorly designed heartless product. Vampire Survivors had raving reviews these last few years and the DLC to sold extremely well. You don't see small developers making this argument, because it is either make a GREAT GAME so you can keep the lights on or get ground up by the market. Just make a good game, make the game that you dream of like Larian has been for decades and people WILL buy it.

[@DarkOmegaMK2]

What these devs are missing is that the product has to be worth looking into in the first place for us as consumers to even consider looking at the labor. If your product sucks then the only reason i have to look into the labor is to point and laugh at exactly who fucked up.

[@youtubedeletedmynamewhybother]

When i look at Halo Infinite the funny thing is i am actually looking *At The Labor* ... Not the fruits. And as it turns out the fruit is rotten due to bad labor. Wowzers. What a shocker.

[@Terovi]

What's most disappointing about this discussion is which direction it went. Instead of asking what can we learn from BG3 and Larian, it's "lower your expectations". And BG3 set a new standard, but it's only about quality. A small studio doesn't have to apply all of them. But maybe focus on quality instead of scale? And focus on a complete experience?

[@mad0813]

The only standard Baldurs Gate 3 set for games in my opinion is that games should be complete. Yes they have glitches and bugs but the devs are open and aware of the issues keeping players informed as they fix it but for the most part 90% of the time the Game is working and complete.

[@VindensSaga]

Yeah, in your opinion.

[@darksunDS]

@@DaRealPielover1987 I'm not sure which people you're referring to because almost everyone that picks up an early access goes in KNOWING it's not done cooking. People going into early access game jump in SPECIFICALLY because they know its E/A and they want to contribute to the development and evolution of the game. Generally, people get annoyed at early access when A. the game goes OUT of early access unfinished B. stays in early access forever without actually improving/growing C. getting worse or running counter to the needs and desires of the player base/fans that backed the team. Basically, people hate early access because in many case it is misused. Not all too different from all the other practices in the industry that people were willing to give a finger for and the industry taking the entire arm. When it's done right, people love early access.

[@whoahanant]

​@@DaRealPielover1987 early access is fine. It's when companies abuse early access is when it's an issue. Larian didn't abuse it they used it for what it was intended for. Pretty sure not thst long ago we had the issue where a game company withheld stuff from their early access for the content creators to give higher praise for but then got flak really quick when they added in all the dogshit AFTER the little early access dip. That's abuse of early peeks/access. That's the stuff people hate about certain companies using it in underhanded ways, not early access itself.

[@mad0813]

@@VindensSaga those are the only standards that matter. If you're paying for a game it should be Complete, Playable, and have a Good story. Baldurs gate meet all of this, Armor Core 6 meets all of this and even Eldena Ring. That should be the standard for games what more can you ask for?

[@Familiar2086]

Larian seems to know that not all bugs and exploits should be removed from the game, it adds to the sweetness of the experience. After playing the 3rd act a couple times my only thought is how unfinished the game is from the mess of an overcompacted city where long resting is a massive punishment unlike the other 2 acts and well, gortash, the missing upper city. Don't even get his acolyte form he just exists to exist and got left behind. The game is very unfinished and rushed in the 3rd act, game is really good, but I can't say that the 3rd act is something other games should follow. Same as how I don't think other games should pay attention to more than the first 10h of cyberpunk for its amazing intro. This might just be me tho

[@Darkspawn6666]

*Surprised pikachu face* games can be good when they are not designed by finance department ? Tell that to D4 boys out there.

[@kaleiohulee6693]

Okay... so now explain Blizzard. Financial stability? Check. Long years of development? Check. Previous entries in a franchises to build off? Check. Strong IP recognition? Check. Lots of player feedback? Check.

[@acidreighn]

Too damn big.. too damn corporate...

[@flaviomolina7165]

Corporate culture was a nightmare, if what came out is to be belived. Its too big and they listen to much to a board and not the people with passion Big capital wants to squeeze the juice out of creative types, not nurture it

[@benja9029]

Bobby's new yacht? no check yet? ohhh it makes sense now

[@MrSirHenryMF]

Breast milk? Check.

[@Static-EN-]

Shill? Check (edit: yes i'm dumb thank you for your time)

[@tobiasrietveld3819]

People claiming BG3 is an anomalie and its 'quality', shouldn't set a new standards are simply trying to misdirect the discussion away from Larians true middle-finger against triple-A industry: that the people that truly love games are sick and tired of the cynical money-milking that dominates 99% of their games, poisoning everything.

[@Kenobi_Cowboy]

I recently uninstalled any game with the obvious cash grab and subpar storytelling. I'm already saving drive space.

[@SpottedHares]

didn't the game have 1000s of bugs that need fixing, including save data issues? sounds like the anomaly is Larians being held to a lower standard then other devs.

[@foodgood5624]

terrible take, i agree it has set a new bar but it should not and cannot be the the lowest bar, it should be the high bar games should try to achieve, not every game MUST achieve

[@azelia2464]

Yep, agreed. Anything these other AAA devs have said are just excuses. Oh we haven't made that game yet, oh we don't have the option to do early access etc. Those are all excuses. Look at Phantasy Star Online from 2000. It was the first Online console game ever made. That team took so many risks with the online functionality, the chat system, and many other things and made it an amazing game. They were willing to take risks and didn't take the easy way out. These current AAA devs definitely tried giving whatever 'reason' they could to shit on Larian but in the end they just made themselves look like complete pieces of shit and showed us just how much they don't care.

[@exantiuse497]

I think it's silly to claim that the only reason BG3 is so good and well received is because it doesn't have microtransactions. That is part of the reason but not the reason. The reason is because the developers that worked on it are talented and have vision. The developers are exceptional, claiming that anyone could make games of the same quality if they just dropped microtransactions is downplaying the developers at Larian Of course I support giving up on the anti-consumer practices that infest modern game companies, but I won't expect all games to be of the quality of BG3 even if that happens, it's simply not realistic. Games can be good even if they don't reach that height

[@scotbayless]

In 1988 I attended my first GDC in San Jose. At one point, I found myself sitting on a couch in the lobby which was screened from another couch behind me by a bunch of potted plants. There were a couple of devs on the other side of that screen talking about how they were crunching and how much it sucked. One of them said, "Nobody cares how hard we work." To which the other dev said, "Yeah, all they care about is their damned game." Exactly. I teach game design these days and that little bit of wisdom is right at the top of my list of important lessons for my students. Gamers don't care how hard your job is. They aren't supposed to. The deal you make with them is simple. They give you money. You show them a good time. Period. Sure, Larian did something smart by using tech and pipelines they knew well. That's just wise use of resources. But to turn that into an excuse for failing to delight your audience is just silly.

[@AloneInTheDark17]

Or as my drill instructor said "No one cares how the sausage gets made"

[@OryxAU]

I don't get why it's so weird that devs are complaining about what gamers are complaining about. Just that the language is different. Both have the same causes and effects.

[@blublubblub]

So the publishers are ok then? Their very aggressive interference and mandates to monetize and lower cost are NOT, in fact, a problem?

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

@@blublubblub Publishers who pays the costs of development up-front certainly deserve to have their say on costs (employees and technology licenses) and revenues (monetization). For everything else usually they don't care much about games.

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

​@@OryxAU If you really listen, developers (big and small) main complaints are about distribution fees. The 30% fees for selling anything on Steam and iOS which are monopolies. Yet I never saw any 'gamers' complain about Steam. Epic store which is way more fair in their practice is getting all the hate from 'gamers'.

[@redlunatic2224]

I think it's worth pointing out that Larian didn't do early access for 3 years. They had a period of EA, collected all the feedback they deemed necessary, and went dark for quite a while, leaving the EA build as a demo more than anything else. I'd say it's a great demonstration on how to msnage feedback intake.

[@LantanaLiz]

Apart from the part where they lied about the game being complete, then hid the fact that both Act 2 and 3 were an unfinished mess, with most of Act 3's content missing and all of the endings they were hyping up cut from the game. Do you seriously think that this game would've been successful if people knew from the onset that Act 1 was the only polished and complete part of the game? All of the people praising this shit game haven't even gotten to the ending to realise that Larian is the same as all of the other AAA in releasing broken, buggy, crap for a high price.

[@redlunatic2224]

@@LantanaLiz Obvious bait. Try harder next time.

[@LantanaLiz]

@@redlunatic2224 You didn't finish the game, did you? You can see for yourself, but you won't because you only played Act 1 and never saw anything else.

[@averythegamer4949]

​@@LantanaLiz So, to anyone else reading this thread, as someone who has beaten the game and gotten through act 1 multiple times on multiple characters, act 1 is a truly massive act that has 3 major areas, them being the crash site, the mountain pass and the underdark, each of which have a large dungeon and really good combat encounters. Act 2, without adding spoilers, consists of the main map and 2 large dungeons with harder and more engaging combat encounters and dialogue options. In terms of hours played it took me 24 hours to casually go through the 3 areas of act 1 and each of their big dungeons and side quests and not caring too much about finding everything, but I had knowledge from playing the early access so someone new to the game will probably take closer to 30 hours to finish the majority of act 1. Act 2 took me maybe 17-19 hours to do casually without caring about finding and doing everything and skipping some puzzles and side quests and that's was my first time experiencing act 2. So just in terms of hours played, act 2 played casually IS shorter than act 1, but you're also past the baby steps of learning proper party composition and how to actually do combat by the time you get to act 2, so all the act 2 combat encounters should actually be a bit easier since now the player has some idea of what they're doing and won't die as much. Just don't rush act 2 and it'll be smaller than act 1 but still a huge amount of content, some of which is probably still being discovered because of just how the game is. Act 3 is, well, I actually fucked up in act 3 and went past the point of no return because I didn't know how many acts were in the game, so I thought it would be like divinity original sin 2 where we'd get a bit of a rug pull before being thrown into the last act, and since if you don't progress the story too far in act 2 you can go back to the act 1 areas I figured I could possible return to act 3 later, so I took a gamble on that and ran into the final encounters of the game while only finishing a single party members story line and like 4 side quests, oops. But from what I did play it still took me almost 12 hours to do casually and I BARELY did anything in act 3 and there are like, 8 party members in the game with most finishing their companion quest in act 3 so that's probably another 10 hours of combat, dialogue and exploration, AND THEN there's all the side quests I accidentally skipped or didn't even find. I wouldn't be surprised if act 3 is another 25-30 hour act simply based off how long it took me to do barely any of it. So act 1 is just a massive act in terms of area size, but the stories, puzzles and combat encounters of the other acts (that I've played through) are much more engaging to experience, so I wouldn't say the game is front loaded and that the 2nd and 3rd acts are "an unfinished mess." As for the buggyness, I only had 1 consistent bug happen while playing and I'm pretty sure it's the one everyone had where you'd attack an enemy and the game would pause for 5-10 seconds before the attack went through, and that happened a handful of times. I had the game bugsplat once while I was sending items to the camp storage and that's it, that's all the bugs I've experienced in over 100 hours of play time. The game is fantastic, just take the time to explore it and try new things and see what they do. It sucks that this person clearly had a bad time with the game, but that's how games work, they aren't made for everyone and the games released this year have been pc hardware checks since the older processors and graphics cards just won't cut it anymore for them. I had to get a new SSD and processor for most of this years games and that upgrade has made a massive difference for me.

[@BrokensoulRider]

My gaming party is in act 3 right now. I'm finding a lot of largely visual bugs and crashing issues? But I think that's legitimately my system more than anything else, though it stops and goes. The 3rd act area is truly massive though and our current save is at 90 hours at the moment of us doing stuff. And we're still not done with all the sidequests and main story quests.@@averythegamer4949

[@DapperProf]

Imagine if the companies who have bought almost all AAA devs kept the companies they bought doing the games they were good at, and didn't have then try to chase economic fads, and then close the shop after one release that didn't quite meet inflated expectations.

[@A____Jeff]

Imagine if they spent as much time fighting their CEOs as they do fighting us.

[@youtubedeletedmynamewhybother]

Yea theres a few devs in a few companies ive lost all respect for because of their twitter usage. ANY OTHER COMPANY/CAREER and you would be instantaneously fired but not gaming companies. They can actively talk shit to their customer base and people keep supporting them xD@@A____Jeff

[@ak318]

​@user-ig8cy5zy8d well unless your in a union you can try to fight the CEO at best you are ignored at worst you are fired and unemployed. Like it's all well and good saying devs should fight their CEOs but employees aren't who they listen to its shareholders. And saying someone should just quit their job if their CEO sucks is not as easy to do as it is to type especially cause to get new jobs you are gonna need a reference from the employer you just left

[@galacticwarlock2271]

Exactly. Remember the Battle Royale or a subscription fad? Every single freaking game was a battle Royale or subscription at the cost of the studios. Activision and EA killed so many studios.

[@charlesmwolf]

@@ak318 but in the gaming industry it can be that easy. refuse to make the shitty crap the "aaa" corperations insist on, and instead start your own companies with crowd funding (exactly what larian did to get dos2 going) as your investors. game dev is one of the few places a union would be useful at the moment, as a majority of them are overworked and underpaid, far more then the voice actors on strike because they want 'more' money from aaa companies for their work.

[@YuubiTimberwolf]

Baldur's Gate 3 is no new standard. Its bringing back the standard of the past, where a game is released fully finished and doesn't need any DLC, micro-transaction or Updates. We need to bring that back.

[@troyrenlen6459]

BG3 has needed several updates, to fix a lot of issues. I agree with most of what you said, but let's not pretend BG3 was -perfect- fully finished. Edited because of a pedantic bellend.

[@Voyajer.]

@@troyrenlen6459 There are no perfect games

[@KPX01]

@@troyrenlen6459 There never was, even in the console era bug/exploit exist. It is a matter of how bad, can you even complete the main quest? Do char model clip all over the place? Frame rate issue? those are all that make a game unplayable, as far as BG3/AC6/elden ring goes none of them has issue to a degree that most would judge unplayable.

[@troyrenlen6459]

@@KPX01 I reread my comment, but I don't see where I said BG3 was unplayable.

[@KPX01]

@@troyrenlen6459 that is the point, no game is perfect. Is the degree of flaw that can be tolerated. Mentioning every single minor bug especially when the dev has already taken measure is not helping anyone imo. Even back when console cant patch their game bug/exploit existed, it a matter of how bad is it. From your tone, for me it sounds like you are just asking for the impossible standard of 0 bug/exploit. I don't think any software for that matter could achieve that.

[@custardstuff5178]

I've been saying this since day 1: This all comes down to synonyms. To the general public "Developers" = "Development studio, including CEOs and Shareholders", to a developer "Developers" = "My friends and colleagues" Only the most unhinged weirdos are attacking the coders behind the games.

[@colinmullally5747]

and a lot of that hate is (justifiably) pointed at publishers, not the developers themselves

[@ImaTroper]

I'll 100% blame the coders too. Game dev isn't a social class you're born into. You dont accidently work for an bad company with evil publishers. It required them to go through a competitive screening process against other people, leaving the losers without a job. Game devs front back and center all worked hard for the honor of making this garbage, and we should praise them as such. Stop sympathizing with the people taking advantage of you. They'd sell you down the river in a heartbeat.

[@river559]

@@ImaTroper See, you're half right here. Yes the industry is a 'dog eat dog' type of deal, but who do you think made it that way? The publishers who thinks of nothing but profit. If you'd been paying any attention to industry news on this channel or any social media for that matter, development studios one after another that made some of THE best games to date, and well respected to boot, each one that had gotten bought up by the greedy bastards who care of nothing but line go up, getting shut down because of being forced to make a game that THEY knew wasn't going to sell, or at the very least not sell well enough that the publishers were hoping for. They were told to make the game or else essentially. And when to no one's surprise it failed, the company was sacrificed to the line god and shut down. There's only a few developers who try to defend these practices, but I assure you, 99+% of the issue lies behind the white collared executives and investors who care about nothing else than making money for themselves. Trying to blame the devs here is like blaming the delivery driver who shipped the fruit to your local store for the farmer's bad practices. Get over yourself.

[@victisomega4248]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@river559much more elegant of a response than I could come up with. That individual screams out of touch with reality, or at least uneducated when it comes to how the industry works.

[@river559]

@@victisomega4248 For real. I can't express how many times I've had to explain these same basic concepts along with a few others on every video when it comes to this. Hell, even on sites like Nexus there's an ungodly amount of entitled and uneducated people believing they know better just because they want something. Even before I got into game design, or even before highschool I was still having this argument.

[@MeCrazy516]

no one is blaming the individual devs, including the ign video guy, and everyone probably knows that......people are clearly blaming the companies, and publishers

[@blublubblub]

Actually, yes they are. SOME people have the correct take, but a substantial number don't, especially the loudest ones. "No one" is too strong of an assertion, friend, an assertion too often made. Perhaps you mean "No one reasonable." Well , in regards to that... I've got very bad news for you, specifically about the gamer community...

[@pureenergy4902]

The thing with baldurs gate is that the standard of games hasnt shifted all thar much (i.m.o). Instead its more the standard of game development and the availability of resources versus the usage of those resources. Companies with mega budgets release games at about 50% of the potential to maximize profit, while small indie games try to push beyond their limited resources and hope that fate is on their side. Ofcourse this is not taking into account luck, marketing, publisher problems, etc, etc (other factors leading up to a game launch and development). In the end, we want the bang for our buck and we dont get our bang often.

[@kosmosXcannon]

The people behind the bear sex scene should get a promotion. It was probably because of that, it went viral.

[@pureenergy4902]

@@DreamingVoid Except for the part where that is not the standard for what games used to be. What your describing is the standard for entertainment SERVICES, but that's the problem. That should not apply to games because games used to be PROPERTY (You buy a game, you own it, you can play it whenever you want however you want) and in recent year developers have been shifting to the service model because it makes more money. Baldurs gate on the other hand keeps the game as property and given that its literally a DND game you can play the game however you want. If you look at the best releases in recent years (not top sales because lets be honest FIFA, COD, etc are not GOOD games), almost all of them released games as property not services.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

​@@DreamingVoid It is ridiculous to look at games in that way. Roguelikes and open worlds with auto-generated quests/loot would by default be the best products then. tl;dr: If a game is memorable, insightful, and an emotional experience then it is a great piece of art. Full: Games are generally art and are best judged by that metric. Did an experience stick with you? If the majority of your playtime is forgotten, then probably not. Did an experience change the way you perceive something? If not then it was probably shallow. Did the game incite a series of compelling emotions from you? If not, you are treating games as little more than a boring podcast to listen to while driving.

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 A good game is one which generates a lot of revenue. Different point of view.

[@BrokensoulRider]

You say that but there's more games/movies/shows that are considered cult classics and did shittily at the main box offices.@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii

[@rensten4893]

It seems that most of these AAA devs realized they can't compete so attacking Larian for making a game that people wanted was what they do instead.

[@CoC_Lord]

They did the same to elden ring last year, it’s obviously not all devs and I doubt even the majority has any actual ill will with these games. The real issue is those bad apples corrupt every aspect of the industry, and allowing them to stay will only make more

[@rensten4893]

@jacobremaly2249 The industry is currently going through massive layoffs pushed by their publishers so I think we're going to see how that plays out until more dev studios grow a backbone and get out of the clutches of AAA publishers they currently align with.

[@arnaudbouret5562]

They probably could compete. But their bosses decided it's not profitable enough to let them.

[@blublubblub]

​@@arnaudbouret5562EXACTLY. But Mom, it's more fun to piss on the developers' faces... If I yell at an actual exec I might actually get arrested, meanwhile all that pleb developers can do is close their "The Platform formerly known as Prince" account and move to another State... /s

[@warhammerguy]

Diablo 4 and Starfield had longer dev time, much bigger budgets, larger teams and bigger studios. There is no excuse that triple A games that have these massive resources and now demand 70$ as a base entry price should be this inferior to Baldurs gate 3. Baldurs gate 3 is not on an "anomaly" with its size and dev time. Anyone remember Anthem and how it took over half a decade to create?

[@warhammerguy]

@@baronvonslambert I am well aware. That don't change the fact that they were given all those years and resources to work with even if they didn't utilise them effectively.

[@icysisdee9547]

AAA Publishers hate it because the game exposed them. People slowly realized that yes, these companies have enough money to: 1) make a game THAT WORKS WHEN RELEASED 2) That these studios have money to make feature complete games without stuffing them with monetization trash. The initial tweet is also lowkey gaslighting. Most ppl know that indie studios wont be able to pull off all the "stuff" that Larian was able to. Doy. If that was the case, people wouldn't played Undertale, but they do. I know Xavier or whatever meant well (i guess), but if i was a developer my pride wouldn't allowed me to undercut myself and other indie developers like that.

[@jackeriksen6753]

I have to disagree Belluar, it's not up to the end user to shift blame. We can't base our criticism or purchases depending on who to blame, only the end result as it's presented to us. Studios and publishers is a agreed partnership way beyond the end users control. We are in no position to support studios forced into a bad deal, without promoting bad or unwanted practices. It's a shitty situation, but should we really give a +2 score to a game because "It's not the developers fault"?

[@andrewcarter9649]

I think you missed the point, it's not to attack the developers who are hamstrung by bad decisions they have no control over but to call out the people making the bad decisions, which is usually the upper management.

[@simplysmiley4670]

We shouldn't. This shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[@MoiMagnus1er]

No, the point is more about presenting the bad grades in a different way. If the product is bad, keep the bad grades, and even the boycotts if you want (vote with your wallet). But for example, complaining about a game being rushed is better than complaining about a game being coded by incompetent developers. And for another example, not harassing on tweeter the developers themself as if they had the power to change stuff like how the game is monetised, but focussing on criticisms the management and/or publishers. Peoples management use metrics where they analyse the most frequent criticisms in reviews. And maybe if a recurring theme is that the developers were not given the means to succeed, things could improve.

[@tenesenka]

The point is to levy criticism appropriately. Don't call AAA devs lazy or uncaring or greedy. Call the execs that. Don't say X studio is trying to milk gamers. Say X publisher is. And stop supporting those bigger publishers. Boycotting bioware doesn't matter if you still buy games from other studios under EA.

[@tenesenka]

​@@MoiMagnus1erEXACTLY

[@ssgtblackmamba7991]

"People only look at the fruits of your labor, not the labor itself." Guess what, I don't care about looking at your labor, that your boss's job. As a customer I'm paying you guys for the end result. If it's shit, I don't really care about giving you money because 'you really did your best'. In that case your best isn't good enough for me to buy in. Seriously, apply that logic to ANY other industry..any... I pay you for you trying and the product being sub par???

[@reganevans1330]

"BG3 and Larian had the unusual advantage of being a game studio, and having access to all the same things that other studios have access too. No other studio specializes in a single type of game like FPS games whereas Larian has made this type of game 2-3 times before - unlike Ubi/EA who are always mixing things up with their games and have little time to refine. Lastly, Larian had the benefit of early access which other studios do as well. A perfect storm for Larian, utterly anomalous." - AAA Games Journalists

[@colemix1852]

Dude this is the best article I've read on this.

[@kosmosXcannon]

Yeah most of the larger studios tend to just chase trends instead. So when the game does come out it might not be as trendy anymore because games are getting longer to develop. I miss the era where you can get the next installment for a game between 1 and 3 years. Games were not nearly as large as they are now and they had the benefit of reusing their assets since they didn't really need to worry about next gen stuff. Which shouldn't be a thing because the gens seem to be getting longer each time. Might be nostalgia, but I consider the PS2 era the best era for gaming for many of these reasons. Not to mention back in that era, the industry was nowhere near as predatory as it is now. I heard somewhere about something that can explain what happened in the industry. Basically during the great recession where most industries were hurting, the gaming industry was one of the few that wasn't. So then it attracted all these corporate business people. Where they do what they do best, and suck the life out of everything they touch.

[@jobiy1999]

Like Ubisoft hasn't been making the same assassin's creed game for almost 20 years lol

[@ramonandrajo6348]

BG3 is super-w@ke, so no. XD

[@AidenAlias]

replying so this comment doesn't get buried.

[@craniummuppet2250]

I have worked in the game industry for 8 years now Larian deserves every good thing coming to them. Super talented people, we all want to have better games

[@powerbeard5653]

BG3 is the old standard I've been screaming at people about for years... but I guess being slapped in the face by it is what it took to convince most people it actually exists.

[@william421]

If you choose to put shit into a sandwich, you have a shit sandwich. "Well... there are a lot of good reasons why it was a shit sandwich, they chose to try to make too many sandwiches at the same time and they kept intentionally changing the chefs out to save money. Also, it was management who decided to put the shit into the sandwich, so was the sandwich actually filled with shit? Is it the restaurants fault that it was filled with shit?" Yes, yes it is.

[@fatalblue]

Short of congratulating BG3 on its success or telling the truth, as in "we can't give you a game of BG3 quality because our hands are tied by greedy suits" they shouldn't have said anything. Outside the latter statement there was never going to be anything the Devs could say that wouldn't ring hallow in the ears of consumers who have grown increasingly frustrated at being nickeled and dimed and bog down by more and more anti-consumer practice.

[@Tuilelen]

This right here.

[@arnaudbouret5562]

You can't say that as a Dev and keep your job...

[@fatalblue]

​@arnaudbouret5562 I know which is why they shouldn't have said anything at all. They put themselves in the line of fire for scrutiny and criticism of the general public when they should have left it to MARCOM and the exces to defend their shitty business practices.

[@blublubblub]

​@@fatalbluenobody needs to defend any practices, or will. They work. People like being fleeced apparently, or they don't but not enough to do anything about it. To stay silent at this point is to support the status quo. But I guess gamers prefer the sweet little lies. "oh another Baldur's Gate 3? In this market structure? Of course sir, right along, be sure to hold your breath while we prepare it, why, EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft, they've all seen the light, oh how blind we were, just do THAT! (smacks head)." Any day now, as long as no one rocks the boat and acknowledges the enormity of the problem, any day now... /s

[@KupaMan]

I think some of the points made in this video are missing the forest for the trees with regards to what Destin Legarie was actually saying. There's a bullet-by-bullet reaction in the middle of this video, but those bullets are *not* Legarie's words, but his reiterating of the sentiment that players are receiving. *He* didn't say that developers are charging more for worse games; he said that from the consumer's perspective, that's what's being seen.

[@YaBoiDingus]

The problem here is devs wanting to LEAD the market instead of meeting the market's demand. That's not how this works and it never should. The market is telling these companies what it wants but all they can respond with is excuses and "it's too hard". Then we get these indie teams who ARE paying attention coming in to swoop up that market share and it pisses the big devs off. It is NOT the consumer's responsibility to care about your budget and profit margins.

[@flaviomolina7165]

You have it backwards No, they are leading by market. They chase money. The big conpanies are led by buisness men and beurucrats who only like capital and money, not the crative types. Indie devs are smalk and led entirely by creative types.

[@soylentgreenb]

No. That's not it. The glue eaters are telling the market that we love spending tens of thousands of dollars on micro transactions in Diablo immortal and they should make their games have an unlimited upper spend and awful gameplay unless you pay to skip. If the average player buys the game on 75% sale when it's $15 and the FASD crowd spends $15 000 they essentially vote with their wallet 1 000 times while you vote only once. Diablo immortal was raked over the coals, ridiculed and derided and it just simply didn't matter; it's massively successful. Most AAA developers are busy figuring out how to cater to these "people" without scaring away all the gamers and it's like figuring out how much sawdust you can put in rice crispies before people will no longer eat them.

[@HaloPlaya443]

​@@soylentgreenb This is a fantastic point, both of these actually. Companies are both trying to force the market to change AND trying to milk their cash cows dry. They're trying to balance things out but after so many years of frustrations, people are having enough, and even folks who DO buy into the mtx of these big games just can't keep up with the demand of time and money anymore, alongside the usual playerbases just dying out entirely. I agree Diablo Immortal was highly successful, even for the wrong reasons, but the main point is the sustainability. Especially with so much spotlight on these issues, the EU actively fighting against it, and a pretty staggering majority of people having taken notice on the problem in general, it's only a matter of time until things get to that boiling point and we start to get an overflow. This is also why they market so hard to kids, even on more mature games, because they know it's so much easier to get them to pay to surpass the grind. (You have no idea how often I catch ads for this stuff on my younger cousin's youtube and google play stuff. They barely meet the T rating.)

[@WhatWillYouFind]

The market didn't ask for OW2, because we just wanted perfection of the original formula the original had. Blizzard is shocked how much negative feedback and market rejection there was when they flopped on every single thing they lied about while destroying it. Why did Battlebit become a viral success? COD and most modern shooters are just monetary platforms with barely even a passable "iterative" improvement each game. Back to the basics, back to the original formula and spirit which made the genre such a heavy hitter. Why was Vampire Survivors so popular? You take the psychology behind addiction and modern gaming conventions and then you DON'T monetize it. It is an intensely structured dopamine train that is not grabbing your wallet. It's fun for fun sake. Which is why it sells millions and millions. This game though really released at the right time, but it is responsible for an entire sub genre revival. I'm not a game developer, but I DO feel empathy for them. If a small developer sells their game at 20 bucks and that's what they feel it is worth in the macro and it is the experience they couldn't sleep at night to make??? I want that game. If it is a game thats priced at 60 bucks and it is from a mega corp with a soulless CEO who put their team through hell just to goud MORE money out of us? I will continue to pass, as I have since the ps2 era when we transitioned to the new models. I haven't cared for AAA in over a decade and it sickens me what humanity has allowed.

[@Zectifin]

@@soylentgreenb most AAA devs just wanna make a good, fun game and are being forced to cater to the dumb whales by soulless execs who went to school for "business" and just try to make maximum profit no matter what.

[@shizunne]

When Half-Life came out it literally blew every other FPS at the time out of the water and raised the bar for what an FPS can be into the sky. If you look at game dev interviews about it from other companies, they were also panicking trying to figure out how to compete with the new standard that Half-Life set. Ultimately, devs learn from successes and make better games.

[@ewjiml]

Apparently, not Ubisoft developers .

[@CrashCraftLabs]

never played it, what did it do that was so different?

[@shizunne]

​@@CrashCraftLabs In a word? Story. The Wikipedia page for it, in the Critical Reception section, summarizes it pretty well. There are also numerous VERY long half-life retrospectives on KZbin that tell a more detailed story. The Act Man has a 40 minute one that will spoil the story but is probably the most concise. There is also a community made, and Valve blessed, remake called Black Mesa with modern graphics.

[@shizunne]

@@CrashCraftLabs Honestly, it's one of those games best played going in blind not knowing anything about it. As long as you like first person shooters in general.

[@wreagfe]

Need some citations and references. Most of the "competing" devs were simply playing HL and then made their own.

[@DestinL]

Thanks for taking a look Bellular. I've listened to every piece of feedback on the video and did a little follow up about it on my personal channel. Chatted with a lot of devs, including Larian and Rami as well as others afterwards. The original piece was just meant to be an opinion about the state of the industry. I definitely should have used the "industry" vs using the word "developer" to convey that, but I got caught up in who I was replying to vs the point I was trying to make. It was never about being mad at Xalavier. It was more about those in AAA who I felt like were pushing against the idea of ever being able to create games without the issues I outlined. Nothing was "planned" and I didn't think developers "hate" Baldur's Gate 3. It was just an opinion I had where I was expressing my frustration and I think it resonated with people. I don't think I ever could have imagined it would blow up like it did. As Laura Fryer said in her follow up, hopefully Baldur's Gate 3 is used as a Kudgel to get the decision makers to see what's possible with appropriate time and assets. Thanks again.

[@tsummarh]

No matter how deep you dig and how philosophical you get, IGN made a pretty good point that the standards of game design and the systems that are built around games are substandard and detrimental to the consumer. And though I understand that many of the developers in these big studios do not have a voice, you can see Mom and Pop shops also producing substandard products based on pure monetization. So you can build a whole narrative around the issue but the core of the issue is that most studios as well as small developers are adopting the same substandard industry trends. And baldur's gate did not.

[@highdefinist9697]

Developers carry some responsibility, but I would still say that the problem is primarily in management. For example, when you have huge turnover in a team, the individual developer cannot even really do much: Capable developer will quickly leave the sinking ship, less capable developer might stay around a bit longer, but in any case, they just move on. So, whatever issue in the company is causing this huge turnover, that is the real problem. And, this is likely something related to management, corporate structure, and ultimately whatever monetary strategy the executives in that company are pursuing.

[@captainthunderbolt7541]

Baldur's Gate 3 didn't even do anything exceptional - it just stood head and shoulders above the competition by being good in every respect and not cutting any corners. It was like the PC RPGs that used to get made. It really should be the standard for a full price WRPG.

[@Reflox1]

Yeah I have been a bit confused by the hype around BG3. I play a lot of WRPGs and many of them are on the older side. For me this game is about the same in depth as those, but just with very detailed visuals and some QoL improvements.

[@captainthunderbolt7541]

@@Reflox1 BG3 is a very competently made game, but it's sad that Western devs are acting like a competently made WRPG is some impossible standard that they can't possibly measure up to. If that were really the case, then they have severe structural problems that need addressing.

[@Tankilein]

Saying that people should look more at the work done and less at the end product must be one of the most tone deaf responses I've ever heard (at least on par with "DO YOU GUYS NOT HAVE PHONES?!"). If I buy a car I want it to work, to be safe and be efficient - I do not care how much work was put into it, period. The consumer has EVERY right to expect something out of a product. If that product does not deliver on that promise it's a bad product.

[@BdotRASS]

Hiding behind the argument that it's not the individual developer's fault is entirely dishonest. No one complaining about the development of games is seeking to single out individual workers, anyone that thinks a complaint about battlepasses is a slight against them personally is a complete dullard.

[@Jorendo]

"They don't see the labor" yeah, sorry but I'm a bit done with Developers feeling like they are special. I don't care about the labor your put in it, just as little as you care how much labor I put in my work. I'm a bus driver, I have to work under insane pressure too with not getting enough time for my rides and a increase of violence against us both in traffic as well from passengers. No one gives a F about that either, as long as we drive on time. Don't hear me bitch about that either. Don't like it? Find a job were you are constantly praised for how hard you work, otherwise, shut up cause you (the devs who complain) are just like any other employee out there.

[@DarkOmegaMK2]

That is it. Some developers feel like they are special snowflakes that go over so much stress and anxiety on their jobs because they have bosses who's demands are out of touch with their workers, well... Newsflash! EVERYONE has to suffer through it! Even if i were to be compassionate about their labor like... what do they even want?! Being bitter at the success of another game isn't gonna get you anywhere or what? because a handful of devs are incompetent everyone else should be as well?

[@killerkonnat]

Good point.

[@Tuilelen]

Context is important. The explanation that one dev gave may have not been INTENDED to sound defensive and like an excuse, but the fact is that it did (as is evident by the resulting backlash). They also appeared to be explaining from a dev-laborer perspective when that was completely unnecessary because the broad "criticism" had always been at the studios as a whole (so if any individual was the target, it was the CEO types from the start). In other words, he appeared to be unnecessarily "clapping back" and starting animosity, which was a bad look. The lesson, as always, is to think about 1) the audience that is ACTUALLY receiving your message (not just the intended audience), 2) not just the content of your message but the WAY you deliver that message, 3) other people's messages and the relative timing of yours, and 4) the platform of your message. Twitter is a very public platform. If you don't want something you say to be scrutinized on every professional and personal level, don't say anything from a professional stance unless it was approved by your professional PR department. PR, folks. That's why it exists.

[@CherriNight]

It sucks that devs can't just like, talk about their jobs on social media without consumers jumping down their throats. Like it's the character artist or level designers fault their favourite game is full of micro transactions. Game dev is such a collaborative effort, and you can't say shit without tiptoeing around gamers

[@battlion507]

But what if the PR team... kind of suck at their job?

[@seansullivan4341]

@@CherriNight it's about reacting to being abused. AAA Studios like Blizzard and EA have been abusing their customers for years and people are now aware of it. A rescue dog doesn't just cuddle up to a stranger because they're a good person, they react defensively to anyone new because they are terrified of being abused further. Gamers are in this emotional state. Well, some gamers. I gave those studios the finger years ago and never looked back.

[@CherriNight]

@@seansullivan4341 okay but... that doesn't mean you can abuse random game devs online. Like, I get people are frustrated and hurt but I hate to tell you, the people making these games, doing the actual day to day work, are gamers too. Lashing out because you are hurt is not an excuse, especially when it's at the wrong people

[@princessjello]

​@@seansullivan4341but... you're not a dog

[@likskirtspleetscreen]

Welcome to the new resort, is 10/10 but hot water doesn't always work, the bazar has the cashiers stuck and the reception employee cannot check you in. But I put a lot of work in it, if you give a bad review I fell offended.

[@cjdjsmith]

I see where you are going with this but the end product is what matters. Sure the developers had to deal with management crazy goals but the only way things would change is not pointing hands. Its speaking with wallets. It's the only language they speak.

[@Mark-vr7pt]

I understand that larian had experience and expertise. But! Bethesda also had those. Specialized engine, team, and a lot of games in the same genre. What about D4? Blizzard had tech and money to make it happen and I assume an expertise too.

[@KPX01]

which is why it is such a weak excuse.

[@thecthuloser876]

RE: Bethesda. Starfield is fine. It's not GOTY and it's not going to make anyone fell like they did the first time they played Morrowind or Skyrim... But absolutely does what it intended to do; be a Bethesda game set in space. Like all Bethesda games, it's going to get better with modding, which is a good thing IMO. (But I'm a believer literally every developer should make mod tools and even try for console mods. Since modding is why I play a lot of old games still.)

[@ganondorf66]

​@@thecthuloser876starfield is a perfect example of how bland the average AAA game is nowadays

[@OneLikeOthers]

I'm not sure about that, the Tech seems to be there, surely the money was, but expertise? I'm pretty sure there have been layoffs in the company not too recently, i wouldn't even be surprised if some key talent responsible fo the design of the game had left a while ago, and even if it didn't happen how could that have prevented it from higher ups to fierciely control how the game was made? Edit: Also, Blizzard had made various types of games that are unlike Diablo 4, and if i'm not mistaken it has been 15 years since Diablo 3.

[@tenesenka]

​@@ganondorf66It wasn't bland, Bethesda game just appeals to a smaller subsection of gamers but Skyrim ended up being a major exception and fluke they'll never match again. People expect Skyrim but it'll never happen. Bethesda games are not actually mainstream. It's not for you. Just like ER and BG3 isn't for everyone.

[@Alex-hy9cw]

they bash baldur's gate like they did with elden ring, jealousy, envy & the fact they can never do something on the same quality.

[@id2k.]

The video of the Fallout director describing the lazy and pathetic state of development in modern gaming sums up the situation well. None of these devs want a standard of competence they can be compared against.

[@TheStephaneAdam]

No, these devs know the suits will use BG3's success against them to make insane demands, without providing any of the tools necessary to build BG3.

[@KillerUnicorn586]

@@TheStephaneAdam Larian build BG3 in a cave with a box of scraps!

[@terrythegnome2408]

They weren't attacking anything. They just didn't want to have to crunch for years to hit a super high standard. Do people think devs don't play games and love them? Its beyond stupid to think devs don't like it.

[@terrythegnome2408]

after making two extremely similar games where they honed their craft.@@KillerUnicorn586

[@terrythegnome2408]

@@TheStephaneAdam Yup that is all he said. Everybody just spun it to make it seem like DEV HATE LARIAN

[@Nerdalgia]

So I will scream this from the rooftops as many times as it takes. Yes Larian is an expert at making CRPGs. That is exactly how teams should be handled when a pubisher is hiring new employees. Start them in a specific genera with a small game and let them build. It's aaa sports vs the major leagues that way thier experts in the genera. Any publisher can do this. They just won't. 🤷‍♂️

[@soylentgreenb]

The problem is that Diablo immortal is a smashing success and continuing to rake in loads of money. It simply doesn't matter that it is the embodiment of everything 99% of gamers hates and it was roundly mocked and raked over the coals. A small number of players is spending tens of thousands of dollars each on Diablo immortal. Larian may eventually realize, like most "AAA" developers already have, that there are a lot of glue eaters out there with more money than brain cells and they should figure out a way to have an unlimited upper spend in their game and then figure out a way to make the game worse unless you buy it, repeatedly, forever.

[@Nerdalgia]

@@soylentgreenb Oh don't get me wrong...I totally understand the reason why they don't. Just don't turn around and complain when everyone calls you out for making a bad game that's just a disguised slot machine. It's the what me!? Of it all that gets me.

[@koro_kokoro]

“Fans only care about the end product”… ya that’s kinda how it works, yes there are workings behind the scenes but the consumer generally for the majority only care about the end result

[@cyberwaste]

Whether they want it to be or not. Baldur's Gate 3 is now a new RPG standard in the minds of many players. Other studios had better just try to follow the path Larian created because I went into Starfield after BG3 and was immediately struck by how shallow it was. Devs may warn that it's not possible to emulate what Larian has done, but now that consumers have seen it, there's no turning back and devs will need to look at what's currently stopping them achieving the same level of excellence. It isn't the consumers. We've proven we'll happily pay for the right product.

[@Malisa1990]

You see the funny thing is many people like myself that have gone from Planscape Torment, original Fallout 1&2, Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex and other older but similar games already knew that all of the Bethesda games were shallow, even Morrowind wich is admittedly a good game but it pales in comparison.

[@ExecutionDbl9]

I havent touched BG3 since Starfield dropped, and won't be going back to it anytime soon. The far superior game is out now

[@galviust6243]

"Larian only makes CRPG's" Me over here side-eyeing dragon commander "Suuuuure"

[@tameelah3839]

One thing that happened in Early Access that is sadly becoming rare to witness is Larian listened to the feedback provided.

[@SYL3NZR]

this all boils down to: people want games to be made by gamers, not people just waiting out their paycheck with no other relation to the project and it shows

[@Strix2031]

You make a huge mistake thinking the market fixes stuff on the entertainment industry. What happens is that baldur's gate-likes will pop up and they will be substantially worse.

[@blublubblub]

PRECISELY. And people will buy them anyway. But no, let's yell at the guy warning us about the perverse incentives...

[@Merinzify]

Players didn't ask for perfect games... players asked for games without bullshit in it, no one said that every other game should be "like" Baldur's gate 3, but at least for me, what I want is just less micro transaction, finished games on launch, no more "live services", etc. and yes, starting now, players will just start using BG3 / Elden ring to counter shitty decisions from big publishers.

[@immanuelaj]

I wouldn't fault Xalavier for saying what he did, since I think he's saying it as an indie dev. It would be very difficult to pull it off as a small studio. But on the flip side, he should give gamers some credit that we can differentiate between indie and AAA.

[@James-ep2bx]

Fair take this

[@littlebear274]

Seriously. Before BG3 I really wanted Dave the Diver to be GOTY. The idea of something like Starfield beating it out was so infuriating to me, because yeah, Starfield is much more ambitious and huge, you're not going to get hundreds or thousands of hours of playtime from Dave the Diver, it's only about a 40 hour game if that with not very much replayability, but Dave was still *better*.

[@BioMatic2]

My problem with Xalaviers tweets is that it puts the responsability in the consumer wanting a great product and not in the management that doesnt allow developers to reach the true potential unlike Larian. Thats what rubbed people the wrong way about the initial tweet

[@HaloPlaya443]

@@BioMatic2 Definitely agree on that one. I think he had the right heart speaking his mind as an indie dev, but he definitely does not give consumers enough credit to know that indie devs (hopefully) don't live in the corporate structure that AAA does, where something as simple as "the UI must have monetization on screen at all times" Is what makes or breaks their games. (I'm going to point at 343 and their vidoc that had them talking about their new "UI design" back in the day, when it was all MTX focus, which they even had the gall to show off in the vidoc back then.) Consumers aren't out here to make indie devs suffer, we know indie devs are going to put their heart and SOUL into a game they are making for the most part (it's easy to pick apart the ones who just want easy money.) AAA don't have the luxury of being able to make sacrifices in the name of love, passion and creativity, they have someone who's motives is none of those three pulling the strings over top of them.

[@thecthuloser876]

As a gamer, I'm not sure I'd give gamers as a whole that much credit. In my personal experince, gamers as a whole don't know how to tell a difference between a game they personally dislike and a genuinely bad game.

[@KPX01]

Last time i check many studio also has the same ingredient with larian. It is just they decide to chase trend and forgo their specialization like bioware with Anthem. So no Larian is really doing what all these studio should have done, play by their strength not the new trend.

[@coregod109]

This analysis is good and all but the major issue is that we've seen it before like you touched on with Elden ring UX and the fact that the people who we're most vocal are devs working for the studios with 100's of millions in budget and 1000's of employees and their new offerings are usually objectively worse than the entries for their IP they we're making around 2007 - 2013.

[@Hesadryt]

Quality leadership is the thing scaring the management and creative directors at these AAA studios. Studio leadership that creates a decent/good work environment, and simultaneously understands that to put out a good game you ultimately have to make decisions to exclude/cut underbaked systems and content. Watching an interview with Sven Vinke is really eye opening at how good a creative director he is and how important that quality/position is. Not even always ‘fat cats’ (Anthem and Andromedas biggest problems were creative direction which couldn’t make any decisions about where to take those games, what to cut, and what to focus on)

[@j0nnyism]

Yea in trying to please everybody in the last few years BioWare has succeeded in pleasing no one. Larian had just stepped into that hole left by them

[@ronsandahl274]

The problem here is with corporate entitlement; the idea that these corporate devs needed to criticize Larian for creating the size/level/quality of game that used to be a common for top line AAA games (The Witcher III, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 4, Red Dead 2, Final Fantasy (several), etc. etc.) These are many of the same corporate tools who have interfered with gaming to the degree that these games are no longer possible, and they want to make damn sure that the peons buying these games shutter their expectations because corporations will make sure that we never go back.

[@shallendor]

As a Shadowrun fan says, "No Corp is the best Corp!" WotC(controller of the D&D title)' is the EA of TTRPG's! Greedy company that doesn't really care about the players, just the money they can steal from them! D&D probably lost BG3 some sale, since they are the company that Unity based their FU behavior on, and didn't learn from all the hate that WotC went through when they tried to pull the same crap!

[@Vamera930]

Hell yeah chum

[@anaguma90]

Regardless of whether or not the IGN piece was ragebait, it succeeded in its purpose of getting a lot of views for them with big creators calling it a rare IGN W and so forth. Sad but it is what it is.

[@maffa2849]

I do not get why devs felt so stung by the request coming from consumers to have a bug free entertaining game that had the customer's (or their specific niche customer) best interest at its core. We as gamers do not care about developers, them being code monkeys or "lead-whatever"s but without the power to steer the core goal of the development. The impression that I, and i think many other commenters had, was that rather than pushing back to the leadership, the publisher and CEOs, the attempt was to push back to consumers to make us accept that BG3 is a unicorn and that we should accept broken, incomplete, uninspired, loot boxed, online only, DRM games because that's the only sustainable way to get any game made. They should join an union and fight for having a say for sustainable games, away from predatory and anti-consumer practises, or... mind their mortgages, bend their heads on their keyboards and code away. Do not talk to me, it's not me they have to talk to, as I certainly do not talk to them when I say 95% of the game market is horrible. I might want to know how the sausage is made, or not. i certainly care if the sausage is any tasty. I haven't bought any new games in three years, since the botched launch of CP2077, and then I bought CP2077 after I've read it was brought up where it was meant to be, and then BG3. If the sausage is tasty then I might get interested to know how it is made and who does it, but if it's not, Ill go eat steak, or go vegetarian.

[@draegoth]

Diablo dev has been making the same game for decades now and still can't produce a decent 4th installment.

[@coope42]

The thing about Diablo 4 is that it isn't the same guys who developed D1/2, those guys are long gone, D3 has its own team still working on it. Diablo 4 had a few veterans when it started, but they all quit soon after leaving a brand new team for Diablo 4. These same people had obviously never played diablo 1/2 and just looked at videos/screenshots to get the art style. This shouldn't, and doesn't, excuse them for a poor mess. They really should have done their homework on their own studio's previous installments to figure out the itemization, pacing, difficulty, and character powers.

[@_Mutto_]

Blizzard has only made 2 installments. 3 and 4. And obviously both blew chunks. One would have had to be a fool to buy 4 after 3 and their other games. Blizzard has never and will never make a good Diablo game. Diablo 1 and 2 were made by a separate dev team that was acquired by blizzard during Diablo 1’s development. They remained largely independent from Blizzard despite being owned by them and were quickly shuttered for being too good at making Diablo games. The version of Diablo 3 they were working on was seen as competitor to Blizzard’s new mmo, World of Warcraft.

[@merdufer]

The idea that "an experienced team using a popular IP to make a game players want" is an "anomaly" shouldn't be the standard. It should be an anomaly.

[@asdion]

"we have to understand why Larian were able to have so much success" They had success because they are not a company that produces soulless garbage while actually putting in the effort into a proper dev cycle, and that should be the standard, we don't need fast game dev cycles just for those games to end up as garbage for months if not years after release.

[@blublubblub]

They control their own capital, which allows them to call their own shots. Period. That's it. Not sufficient, but certainly necessary to not have the publishers' screwing with your game. Ranting about "soulless garbage" is touchy feely nothing that confuses the symptoms for the cause. You get fast dev cycles because the publishers win and the devs get the blame and the burnout. Hey, it works for execs. WHO'S THE MONEY? That's the most relevant question when you're evaluating whether a game is the next BG3. If it's not the studios', think again.

[@asdion]

​@@blublubblub what are you even disagreeing here? short dev cycles are bad period, they lead to soulless garbage which is just a way to say games that are made purely to optimize profit based on a brainless consumer-base that buys anything with a fancy name on it iregardless of how bad it its. And no "who's the money" is not the most relevant question, who are the devs beholden to is the most relevant question. Larian is beholden to its customers, they can not afford to produce garbage, because even with Tencent financing their company could not survive a massive failure that alienates their audience. Unlike companies like Bethesda who can do whatever they want with virtually no consequence because people lap up everything they produce, even Fallout 76 managed to net millions of sales despite being irredeemable garbage and that's back on release by now it's probably even more

[@ChacetheBass]

19:19 its not cowardly, its abuse from the bosses. If you can't safely complain that you think your business practices are emotionally and psychologically abusive without fear of being fired, that's abuse.

[@magnusgodrik9870]

Bg3 showed me that my expectations of aaa developers were way too low. All the money behind a game doesn't mean shit if the developers can't get their shit together.

[@TheDiazDarkness]

The developers have their shit together, is the investors and publishers that are the problem. They decide what trend to chase and how much broken a game can be for release and still get the max amount of profits.

[@chikin6146]

Devs who excuses their "hard work" for a bad product doesnt understand that consumers doesn't buy their "services" to make games. They buy the "product" they make. It's essentially a chef saying "I worked hard buying all the ingredients, preparing them, and putting them in the pot" but if that food taste like shit, it doesn't fucking matter.

[@chyny12]

They don't hate the game itself. What they hate is that Larian managed to pull all of this off as well as unfalteringly supporting the game with these massive patches that come out so quickly. Larian is doing precisely what companies used to do before the advent of microtransactions. Where they would focus on making a good game first and then leave sales to be dictated by the quality of their work. Hell, Larian themselves didn't even expect BG3 to sell even a quarter of the copies that it ended up selling and that's huge, because it goes to show that despite having made what many would say is a masterpiece, they're so humble about it that they aren't letting the success go to their heads. Larian on the other hand, has made quite the game initially and has done nothing but improve it constantly with the patches. Sure they cut some content, but for all intents and purposes, BG3 was a complete package deal with absolutely no BS attached to it. Larian even went as far as to give everyone who was involved in EA a free upgrade to the Digital Deluxe Edition. This is what happens when you put the consumer first and you strive to make them happy instead of trying to ensure that the game has everything within it to make back all the money. When you take that approach, it kills vision and creativity because it's no longer about making a good game, it's only about making a PROFITABLE game. So I don't think other devs hate BG3. I think they hate that Larian was able to make precisely the game they wanted to make without restrictions, unlike themselves who probably have to factor in microtransactions the majority of the time which in turns, kills their own creativity. Of course there will be salty devs who are mad at it because it "raised the bar" and that means consumers are gonna expect more from them. But last I checked, expecting better products isn't a bad thing. It should be motivation. Learn from what Larian did, look at how they treat their fans and customers and more importantly, understand that making a good game should come first every single time with no exceptions. Loading up a game with microtransactions that isn't fun is a recipe for disaster. Look at Marvel's Avengers, Destiny 2 and basically any EA and Ubisoft Title. Then again, what do I know. I'm just a random shmuck.

[@littlebear274]

I quietly took Starfield off my wishlist barely a week after it launched. Then I spent the entirety of my games budget for at least the rest of this year on BG3 ($100 in local currency) and I can't stop playing it. For me the two absolute stand out games of 2023 have been BG3 and Dave the Diver, completely different in pretty much every way but both just amazingly crafted.

[@kosmosXcannon]

This is the old baseline of what games used to come out. Where they were not monetized to hell and back with microtransactions.

[@YawaruSan]

The conflict between engagement-driven design and experience-driven design is its difficult to justify not being as manipulative as they can get away with. They can try to make something original like Immortals of Aveum that can go largely unnoticed or they can recycle assets several years running and still rake in massive profits on a yearly schedule. One of these strategies scales indefinitely and the other can sink a studio with one bad release.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

​@@DreamingVoid The movie industry also have regulations that are arguably absent from the game industry. You aren't allowed to put in a single frame of popcorn, or whatever the movie theatre sells, in the movies you show. That was taking advantage of behavioral psychology to manipulate movie-goers. Games don't have regulations like that.

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 That's just stupid non-sense. Subliminal advertising doesn't work and is a urban legend.

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

​@@DreamingVoid I think EA have figured it out a long time ago. Acquire popular licenses and milk them. Focus on that by killing one offs and unprofitable products. Same goes for Disneys strategy with Star Wars movies. Ubisoft also figured it out with FarCry 3... but just like Hollywood is chasing the next trend. What's different might be the length of those trends. Hollywood ended disasters movie trend when people got fed-up and the subject completely exhausted. I really hope super-heroes are on the way out. It's been milked to death and the heroes left to exploit just get increasingly ridiculous.

[@yvannenikolainethercott5709]

@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWiiFor you, it does not. But this is how MTX sells. One very basic example of "subliminal advertising" as you put it in MTX-heavy games, like Diablo Immor(t)al is that it makes you go to the Real Money store to claim your free daily bonuses. So now what happens is: "Ok, so you hate advertisements of deals popping up on your face when you log in to the game, so we won't do that. Instead, you're going to go to the ads yourself by walling your daily bonuses and requiring you to go to the in-game store, where you'll be forced to see the advertisements you so hate seeing". But specifically subliminal advertising happens because of other players. Another player walking around will have this cool cosmetic set. And then you look at yourself and see you look like everyone else. So the "popcorn" may not work immediately, but as you walk around and kill stuff, you'll keep noticing more and more people looking the same as you, and you are drowned out in this world where everyone looks the same as you. The "popcorn" starts to take its hold.

[@spastictuesdays340]

BG3 is loaded with lessons for those AAA corporations. I'm betting they won't learn a thing. I would also ask this: How the happy f*ck is the idea of an established, specialist studio doing the thing they specialize in an anomaly? Just how braid-dead has this industry become? This is what happens when the executive class hasn't even the faintest clue about the products they sell or the people that make them. On top of all that. As a consumer I absolutely do not need to respect or appreciate the labour that went into a bad product. Toil endlessly to add nuts to a turd, it's still a turd, it just has nuts in it now. Most AAA developers would want to put those nuts in an in game store.

[@BoneRazrK]

Agreed. Like, shouldn't Larian's processes be the standard? How is it that CEOs can just mandate these arbitrary development cycles and NOT see that allowing more time and care could benefit the quality of their products? I understand Larian had 3 years of Early Access - I invested 50 hours during it - and you know what, all that time and player feedback allowed them to create a smashing success. It's almost like other Publishers should take that example and run with it...

[@TheDiazDarkness]

​@@BoneRazrKYou think they don't see it? All the publishers and investors know this, but at the same time know that people will still buy broken software and make more profits that way. Giving time and fixing is less time selling the game.

[@Stephen-Fox]

Absolutely on the issue being the publishers, not the developers. There is an aspect of the discourse you didn't touch on, mind, that not all of us looking to BG3 (And TotK, and ER) and going 'more like that, please,' are literally wanting everything to have the same scope as BG3. And, yeah, indies are able to give me some of what I want. But I want to see a world where AAA games doing that becomes the norm rather than the exception, like it was 20 years ago. Some of us going 'more like that please' at those three games this past couple of years are from the "I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I'm not kidding" crowd - It's not the scope of BG3 I want more of, or the shininess (although, yeah, larger studios have more resources meaning they should be able to put more polish into the game than indie studios are), it's having a complete experience I can pay for once, don't have to deal with any microtransactions or battlepass bollocks, and have a good time for... However long the experience happens to be, and if I want more of it... I can restart it, or go after some optional collectables, or whatever. (...Though in my case I also specifically mean 'more games with turn based combat where I can play it while sipping on a hot drink and not have any disadvantages from doing that' whether or not that's smaller scope or entirely linear experiences when I point to BG3 and say 'more like that, please' because I've preferred turn based, and otherwise slower paced games, for a very long time now)

[@zztzgza]

The few devs that took to twitter to defend the modern standard of games and saying that BG3 should not set a standard are complicit with the decisions made by executives. How many times have devs been on stage and/or in front of a camera trying to sell the mtx gaas game as if it's the best thing ever. They're always so excited for "live service" features that push monetization first and foremost. How many more "live service" games are going to come out with the same road map, the same battlepass, the same currency conversion, the same grind, literally the same game before enough of them die for things to change.

[@ignskeletons]

What Larian did is simply prove that a massive game of this scope, scale, complexity, and depth could be achieved. They also did it without microtransactions and the game was still a monumental success commercially!

[@HangerHangar]

Along the lines of "who gets the blame" you gotta hand to to Todd Howard for being willing to be the butt of the joke and the face of the meme for Bethesda bugs. Most other business leaders leave that heat and hate to their employees to deal with (some companies like Disney are especially toxic about this, where they tell actors exactly what they must say and while knowing they're turning that actor into a lightning rod for social media hate).

[@jmjedi923]

Honestly one of the reasons I respect the hell out of Todd, memes aside

[@skorpion7132]

The curious thing with Bethesda... For some unexplainable reason you believe them to be massively incompetent rather than straight up lying pricks. One thing you can say about Todd, at least he believes what he says and he'll (happily) take the brunt of the pushback. Its quite remarkable.

[@OryxAU]

​@@skorpion7132 Yeah, and if you listen to him talk you can tell he has great respect for his developers. He doesn't talk about them like just employees, they're his team and he's conscious of how demoralising it can be to have them scrap and rework something because it didn't feel good to play. Something that other AAA seemingly don't care about, and why a lot of projects end up in development hell only to come out as disasters later on or get cancelled with nothing to show for it. Say what you will about Starfield, but a disaster it is not. Developing Fallout 76 must have been an absolute nightmare, I still have no idea why Bethesda and that other new studio were tasked with it instead of.... Zenimax Online which already had experienced devs specifically for online games.

[@tenesenka]

​@@skorpion7132because he doesn't actually lie. Their stuff isn't even incompetent. Few devs could match the scope and scale of what they do. The issue is that the changes between Skyrim and Starfield are not obvious, even though there's a ton, and smaller scoped games like Elden Ring, which can fine tune things better because of the greater simplicity, make Bethesda games look worse by comparison to casual viewers.

[@fus132]

@@tenesenka Cyberpunk '77

[@powerfist1340]

The issue with pulling sympathy for the developers is that, in the end, the best way of protesting these trends has the same impact on those developers. So endlessly telling me to think of the developers only starts to make me, as a consumer, resent them for being the shield used to justify this nonsense. After all, the only thing these companies care about is profits, and if profits go down the first people to feel the pain are those devs.

[@skylerfreeman1173]

I mean if you want change, you gotta suffer lol. Riots and strikes ALSO mean you don't get paid/have a job. BUT they benefit the industry in the longterm. I think it's time for devs to really take a look at their livelihoods... need a union or something lol

[@oliorogue]

Management seems to be horrible in all industries lately

[@SIlverloreguard]

I think that there is another underlying issue here which is that of trust. Larian has done a lot of work to foster trust in their community. I was one of the people who bought into the early access in the first week or so. I did that not because it was Baldur's gate, but because it was Larian, and Larian had repeatedly given me reason to both give them the benefit of the doubt, and had demonstrated that my interests and enjoyment would have an impact on the game over all. This was proven with the changes that Larian made through ought development and how they managed community engagement. This issue with the importance of trust can also be seen in things like the whole Unity debacle. Perception really matters with all of this and the problem that gamers are having is that they don't feel like games are respecting their time.

[@RKGrizz]

I do not think anyone meant the actual coders and artists when they say developers. They were talking about the development studio as a whole, from the CEO to the marketing departments.

[@ssagard2000]

If the excuse is that other studios didn't have the same strength as Larian due to bad decisions in the past maybe the new standard is more about not making mistakes such as promising what you can't deliver.

[@SonicSanctuary]

exactly, the big take away for me there

[@tenesenka]

you realize Larian had many BAD publishers for 20 years and narrowly found freedom, almost failing and closing up. They only got here because people supported them and gave them a chance. If you're not giving studios a chance to break free, they'll always be tied to publishers by necessity. Saying "they made that choice" is ignoring the solution that Larian out-right proved and paved.

[@nyalan8385]

The original post had absolutely nothing to do with people giving larian faith. The post was about game companies not making promises they don’t have the capabilities of keeping, I don’t see where player faith comes in to that aside from it being lost after unkept promises

[@snives7166]

If you think anything but the fruits of the labor matter when creating things, you're in the entirely wrong space. Even failed projects bear fruit when handled properly. It may be in developing a new technique, learning how to be more efficient, or having actual assets you can still keep. From ALL perspectives only the fruit matters and it takes a very disturbed perspective to think that burning time and effort just for the sake of it having been laborious has meaning.

[@IdleCommentator]

With CDPR and Cyberpunk it would be a bit disingenuous to excuse the development team as, for example, pretty recently before launch a number of interviews with some of the developers (not management) were they straight up made misleading statements about certain features of the game. I don't think they did not have any other choice in that situation - instead they knowingly chose to mislead the consumers.

[@thecthuloser876]

I had two issues with this whole discussion. 1.) People act like "complete" big budget games are absolutely unheard of, when 2023 was a year that had a number of absolutely bangers, even before BGIII came out. 2.) People not realizing BGIII was a AAA game. Like, Larian had 400 people working on it and a budget that's estimated to be over $100 million. Like, yeah, absolutely present it as the sort of polish that people should expect from other AAA games but don't pretend Larian is some small, plucky independent developer. They aren't, especially now.

[@JStack]

BG3 has literally redefined what I expect from a game now. I have no problem playing free and cheap indie games with some painful bugs and additional monetization. I will never accept a AAA steaming pile of shit again, and that's a big reason why I can't enjoy starfield

[@comyuse9103]

welcome to the real world, glad you could take off the blinders

[@rosaschlupfer635]

I think you repeatedly misunderstood what people mean when they say developer. They are talking about the studio and not the individual person writing code in that studio. Just like when I say car manufacturer I am not talking about some bloke standing in a factory installing doors on a car chassis. I mean BMV, Toyota, Honda and whatnot.

[@technocore1591]

"people too often only look the the fruits of labour and not the labour itself" Sure but this can be extended to game devs/publishers who look at the money their customers spend on their games and not the labor those customers did to make that money.

[@blacksnow7106]

the "perfect storm" for larian/BG3 is not a perfect storm. It's what any (game) company should have done: keep the team, build up from their experiences from older game, refine old formula, don't get contemplated, and above all else make a good game. The other companies have been crunching like hell and then lay off their devs, then focus on stupid stuff like subscribing models and microtransactions, rely only on a fanbase of old IP. No wonder why their games are stagnant, D4 is barely a D3 reskinned with more transaction, Starfield is only a slight improvement to Skyrim. As a former worker and learning engineer, I get the dev's pain though, it's not their fault. It's the CEO who never played or never developed a game who make the absurd decisions, firing developers/teams/studios and keep being mediocre. The devs are just trying to survive in the absurd industry.

[@zer0_cool]

I think the main take away from this year in gaming is studios should make they game they *want* to make and are experienced with, rather then being forced to chase whatever trend is popular (and more profitable).

[@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWii]

Wrong from the studios point of view. EA will keep making money with their sports and shooter games. The games will be the same with the same average quality. Ubisoft will die if they miss the next trend so you'll see them hang on to anything new and promising.

[@poro9084]

not really, didnt Tango Works released hifi rush - when they mostly release fps horror games? the trend is more to release completed games

[@ShopFloorMonkey]

"We have to value, and respect, that labour" Do we, though? If it came to a great product, sure. However, If I wrote a crap poem, do I have the right to demand that my work was worthwhile and arduous, and therefore 'deserved' respect? Or do I have to accept that it will be judged in due course and live with the market-driven results?

[@Dangerpurple]

They cope and seeth at games that do well and please fans at the same time, then they huddle around one another defensively when one of their floppy stinkers comes out and is a buggy unfinished mess, or a literal hate letter to their fans, and shield them from criticism.

[@Spectrum0122]

I love this analogy. So I work in a kitchen. Why should a customer care about the process of making food? They just want something to eat and I need to deliver that product. I shouldn't have to know about game design to want a full complete game launch

[@ichitensho7075]

i like how some devs says its harder to make games now , when tools and engines and assets are more accessible than ever...

[@flaviomolina7165]

Not the tools, its the master whipping your back. LArian has a better conpany culture than. Most. They also dont have to listen to a large board, and the guy that owns it, mr larian himself, is just a big fan of the kind of games they make Ubi or EA do noooooot give a fuck about their own developers, so the devs there just treat it as a job. No passion, no love, just product . Its a meat grinder

[@reappermen]

To an extend both sides are correct. It is pretty easy to remake a lot of the older games nowadays, compared to when they were made. However, consumers also expect more from most games nowadays. Similar thing happening in gaming hardware right now. Nearly everyone agrees products like the 4060ti are massively disapointing and weak. That doesn't mean that it won't smoke every card from 10+ years sgo to a comical degree.

[@nicokruger]

i think when the public customers use the word "developers" we are not explicitly refering to the guy coding at his pc... this is a term used collectively for the "makers and publishers of the games" which includes the CEO, CFO, programmer, owning studio etc etc... so yeah its a collective thing... the tech devs responding to these comments are seeing only their view, and indirectly trying to defend their higher management but actually trying to defend their own work... so there is a lot of missaligned arguments here...

[@godofsquirrels494]

My thought it is that the devs shouldn’t be worried about the expectations since baulders gate. They should be worried about the expectations of the executives.

[@skylerfreeman1173]

"Why can't you guys make a bg3 banger!! You're not gonna see your families until this project is finished!!" _financesProbably

[@Frozennova18]

I haven't seen a single person online saying that the devs are at fault for making so many AAA games garbage. it's always useless people at the top that are focused on making money more than making great games. devs can say what they want I guess, but it's stupid for them to say BG3 shouldn't set a new standard. BG3 has absolutely set one, but it means that the higher ups in other companies need to get their shit in order, or their companies are going to keep failing

[@senoka4638]

Building goodwill with your customer base means long term support and a stronger hardcore fan base. It can mean a more steady stream of profit. The issue we run into is that now now now mentality that these investors with no passion or love for the product have. Nothing wrong with making money. And it's always a risk for investors to put their money into projects. I just think actually caring about the product and consumer definitely gives a healthier outcome for all parties involved.

[@thant0s]

".. people too often only look at the fruits of labor and not the labor itself.." ".. we do have to value and respect that labor.." I'm buying a product, not donating to a charity. Customers doing anything at all more positive than simply buying your product is the exception, not the rule. Some really silly expectations going around.

[@BoringGamer2023]

This video feels like Bellular not wanting to hurt the developers feelings for fear of future repercussions. Larian gave us an amazing game at a normal pricepoint without any extra transactions.

[@Strider_Shinryu]

While I get the point being made, and don't disagree with it, I still feel this is just playing with semantics. When most people complain about "the developers" they aren't really complaining about individual devs. They aren't complaining about Suzie on the combat design team or Bob on the art team; they're complaining about the whole system that the game is being produced under. Sure those doing the criticizing could (and maybe even should) be more precise and targeted in their commentary, but it really feels like in this case Suzie and Bob are essentially just choosing to get offended.

[@danapowers-green3172]

I think (and this video seems to support it) that it is perfectly understandable for a developer to feel defensive if they are working at a company where due to management decisions they can’t possibly make a Balder’s Gate level game but are potentially afraid of being judged by the public or by those very same managers for not doing the impossible. That being said we should total drag publisher and large studios if they try and sell shitty games and include predatory micro transaction. Studios don’t have a right to our business

[@szymussmilitaryfreak]

The biggest issue surrounding this discussion - about BG3 being just anomaly or a new standard - is that most of big AAA studios HAS MANY OF THE SAME STRENGHS AS A LARIAN, BUT CANNOT UTILIZED THEM PROPERLY, BC OF : 1. rushed production cyckle 2. keeping the same release, even if developing is nightmare bc of internal and/or external factors (look: DICE and BF2042) 3. studios are forced to make game that is out of expertise (Redfall and Arkane Austin) bend the game around forced MTXs and retention mechanics (Marvel Avengers and also plausible Suicide Squad)