Still such a weird game to early access.
Between the BG/D&D fans and DOS fans, which is louder?
Ah well. Back to not playing the EA builds.
I don’t think it ever had a release Window.
I thought planning an end to early access = release window.
Still, I won’t be playing it in EA, definitely not the sort of game that lends itself to EA imho.
I have Warhammer 3, Elden Ring and about 5 other new releases lined up, plus another dozen games that have been bought and not yet finished (e.g. Battle sector) or in some cases not even touched (Nebuchadnezzar! :()
I’ve been hesitant about this game since it was announced. I just didn’t understand why a massive IP, developed by one of the most successful RPG devs of the last few years needs an EA release. But ok, fine, it’s BG3, doesn’t matter. Then it releases on the Original Sin engine, with imported assets and everything. Then it gets updates slower than some of the indie EA titles… And now it needs one more year, at least.
Owl Cat released 2 great games in 4 years, after the 2017 kickstarter, so what gives?
I suspect Larian bit more than they could chew this time. I also suspect they made little/no cash investments in the game, running solely on early purchases. Finally, I think they ran into major issues with their engine and sometimes, as we’ve seen with other games, fundamental engine issues can be hard or even impossible to fix.
I hope I’m wrong but even if I’m not, I got my BG fix from the Pathfinder games.
Your thoughts on financing may be accurate, but the rest not so much. Reports are the game so far is excellent, just not finished yet. Even the earliest reports from when EA began were pretty much universally positive.
They never committed to that being 2022 is what I’m saying. I think at best they said “it may leave early access in 2022” like last summer. It was never stated for certain. I mean, they aren’t even saying 2023 for sure.
It’ll be pretty funny when the flagship 5E videogame launches after 5E is sunsetted, I guess. . .
But totally on brand for WotC. As long as it’s good I don’t care.
As an aside, they’d be insane to completely obsolete 5e. Maybe they re-release the core rules 3.5e style, so the old material is still usable. As it is, the majority of the modules now seem to be settings, maps, and story beats. The stat blocks and encounters are not the primary focus, and it wouldn’t be hard to release supplements that update old module NPCs with new stat blocks. Plus, with D&D insider, they can just update the web pages.
I haven’t played D&D since Covid started, though, so what do I know.
Yeah, the plan is basically a version 5.5 that slowly fixes things in intermediary releases, like the new multiverse monsters book giving current version style stats for playable heritages that hadn’t been updated yet.
It doesn’t sound like their plan at all. The rollout has WotC gradually adding and amending rules through supplements (starting with Monsters of the Multiverse) and other products so that the whole just evolves into “6e” eventually. I don’t know if they’ll be successful, but it sounds like they’re just as scared of alienating 5e players as those players are of losing a solid system.
Edit: @ArmandoPenblade got it covered.
That sounds like they’re doing it right then! I think Monsters of the Multiverse is the first hardcover rule book for 5e I haven’t bought. Since I’m not playing anymore it just went right under my radar.
I look forward to 2024 when I can play BG3 on my Xbox. Or maybe 2025.
I believe they did EA on DOS and DOS2 and it was very useful to them.
Ugh, y’all were right. I was totally misremembering the ‘release’ talk back in 2020. The early emails all talked about EA release in August/September 2020 and nothing made mention of an actual full release date. My bad.
I did find this funny, though, from September, 2019: “For those of you hungry for Baldur’s Gate 3 news, stay tuned - once the floodgates will be opened, there will be no end to it.” So, maybe ‘no release’ was the plan all along.
Sure, but Baldur’s Gate 2 I believe was released around the time D&D 3.0 came out, and especially the expansion afterwards. Both based on a modified AD&D 2nd edition.
‘Early Access’ has been used a lot of games that just aren’t quite polished or whever, but BG3 was a true Early Access. They’ve been iterating on core gameplay and mechanics.
Kingmaker came out and then shortly thereafter Pathfinder 2E came out. I recall something similar happening with other games as well.
I think a lot of it is a matter of new editions have to last long enough to be popular enough to make a game of, combined with fairly high edition churn in table top games, especially once those systems have been around a long time (which is a prereq for making the game in the first place). Once you decide to do it, development tends to be fairly long.
There is a reason Wrath of the Righteous was a PF 1E game. They didn’t want to have to reinvent the wheel.
So it is…not uncommon.
Neverwinter Nights is one of the first Third Edition D&D crpgs followed by Icewind Dale 2. (damn shame the source code is lost)
But The Temple of Elemental Evil was 3.5 bitches!
“Not uncommon” just means it’s been funny half a dozen times before now!
But seriously, it’s hilarious to me that this is still an ongoing issue in the licensed D&D space.
Still, better than the handful of licensed titles that make almost no use of D&D rules whatsoever, like the ARPGs and whatnot.
I’m sure I’m biased, but I’ve always found it bizarre that WotC wasn’t begging game devs (at least quality game devs) to make D&D games. As in, paying THEM to make the game, not the other way around.