WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox, "I would say that the underlying thesis of our D&D business is all about digital,”

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I do not believe it will be impossible to convince Larian to make expansions at least. I do not expect Larian to agree on anything until they are good and ready. Probably including a full review of the lessons learned from BG3. I would not expect to hear anything for a while. I seem to recall that they were working on BG 3 sometime before they announced anything.

It might also be possible to get Larian to license the BG3 code to other studios, like how Black Isle made the Icewind Dales and Planescape: Torment using BioWare's Baldur's Gate engine. Thought it's going to be hard for any such licensed games to reach the bar of quality that BG3 has set.

edit: Ninja'd

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Its down to just 96 metacritic score, because of jealous Zelda fans review bombing apparently I'm hearing.

Metacritic's main score isn't impacted by review bombing, because it only considers actual review sites/mags, not randos with an axe to grind, and it's still on 97 as of now.

No idea who you're hearing that from but they are 100% an idiot and in future you should not trust what they say re: this sort of thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Metacritic's main score isn't impacted by review bombing, because it only considers actual review sites/mags, not randos with an axe to grind, and it's still on 97 as of now.

No idea who you're hearing that from but they are 100% an idiot and in future you should not trust what they say re: this sort of thing.

Just has low numbers of reviews. Each review is almost 4% of the total.

Rotten Tomatoes is useless.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Larians a smaller company than Paradox interactive who has multiple flagship titles. Well pre BG3.

I don't regard either one as a triple AAA developer but Larians probably in better place than WotC options.

I'm waiting to see what they'll produce.

The difference is that Larian actually demonstrably is an AAA company. You "not regarding" them as an AAA company just means you are being silly, frankly. They just made an AAA game. It's one of the best-rated games in gaming history. You might have heard of it. They had 400 employees working on it.

The only AAA game I'm aware of Paradox ever having even attempted is Vampire Bloodlines 2, which is in some sort of wild development hell from which it might never emerge. Paradox's own view, as expressed in interviews/AMAs is that they are not an AAA company, they're a company which makes a lot of AA games.

Comparing them doesn't make much sense because they have totally different histories and ways of working.

Just has low numbers of reviews. Each review is almost 4% of the total.

26 reviews is far more reviews than most games get, and is fairly typical for an AAA. This is easy to see - just click on other recent PC games - SF6 - 30 reviews, Resi 4 remake - 23 reviews, Dead Island 2 - 25 reviews, JA3 - 43 reviews (which is interestingly a bit higher, I think because it came out in a gap in the reviewing schedule), the only major outlier I see on PC is Diablo 4 with 89 reviews. I imagine BG3 will go down in time more like 95-96 as it gets a larger number of reviews but the idea that 26 is "a low number" is obviously wrong.

Not sure why you're coming out with this counter-factual stuff. It's not helpful.

 

[Zardnaar]

The difference is that Larian actually demonstrably is an AAA company. You "not regarding" them as an AAA company just means you are being silly, frankly. They just made an AAA game. It's one of the best-rated games in gaming history. You might have heard of it. They had 400 employees working on it.

The only AAA game I'm aware of Paradox ever having even attempted is Vampire Bloodlines 2, which is in some sort of wild development hell from which it might never emerge. Paradox's own view, as expressed in interviews/AMAs is that they are not an AAA company, they're a company which makes a lot of AA games.

Comparing them doesn't make much sense because they have totally different histories and ways of working.

26 reviews is far more reviews than most games get, and is fairly typical for an AAA. This is easy to see - just click on other recent PC games - SF6 - 30 reviews, Resi 4 remake - 23 reviews, Dead Island 2 - 25 reviews, JA3 - 43 reviews (which is interestingly a bit higher, I think because it came out in a gap in the reviewing schedule), the only major outlier I see on PC is Diablo 4 with 89 reviews. I imagine BG3 will go down in time more like 95-96 as it gets a larger number of reviews but the idea that 26 is "a low number" is obviously wrong.

Not sure why you're coming out with this counter-factual stuff. It's not helpful.

BG3 might vault them to triple A but it's only 1 game. If they can consistently do it sure.

Actual Triple A studios can make the games somewhat consistently, gave multiple studios and sell a lot more than BG3.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They haven't shown much in the way of that level of coordination, project management, and marketing sensibility. I get the sense that 'cash grab' is not the real issue, but rather it refers to the fact that their overall design and business strategy seems so incoherent, poorly organized, and disconnected from the fan experience. Like they know that legacy products do well, but they have no coherent idea of how to update them. Or they know that diversity and cultural sensitivity are issues, but they don't themselves totally understand those issues. I'm pretty distanced from 5e now but there's nothing about it or the upcoming revision that makes me excited to jump back in.

Extremely well-put and it's kind of the wildest thing about WotC's attitude to D&D for me.

They have profound issues understanding what works about D&D, and what to do with it, and yeah, it's not for straightforward cash-grab issues. It's particularly weird because it doesn't seem that complicated or difficult a thing to understand, and before anyone loudly shouts about how "Fans always think they know better!", well, maybe remember the last few years? Especially the OGL debacle? At this point, as little as fans may know, they still seem to know more than WotC does!

Which actually might be why their bizarre obsession with the surveys and the 70% threshold continues. It's also why 5E is relatively conservative - because they don't understand what they're doing right, their main goal is simply to not do wrong things.

This applies to the cultural issue stuff too - I'm an aging (45) straight(ish) white male from a middle class background, and I'm not even from the US - and if you'd even used ME as a "sensitivity reader" as it were on the various cultural screw-ups they've made, I'd have detected all of them. With the Hadozee I'd have been screaming "RED FLAG RED FLAG" into Zoom or whatever we were communicating on the moment someone said "Let's bring back the monkey people!". But everyone at WotC seems to be completely blasé about it and continually Pikachu-faced by the blowback!

But somehow in this mix, someone at WotC apparently has the pull to hire an alleged 250+ people to work on the 3D VTT, and as of the March preview, they certainly seem to be doing something.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Actual Triple A studios can make the games somewhat consistently, gave multiple studios and sell a lot more than BG3.

No this is nonsense. You're continuing to say things which just aren't true.

Plenty of triple A studios have worked on one game at a time, historically, and relatively few AAA studios reliably sell more copies than BG3 - this is a common delusion, because you hear the numbers of the biggest-selling games and assume that's "AAA games" in general, but most AAA games sell low millions, sometimes far less.

Once an AAA studio reaches a certain size, and Larian are there, it does behove them to work on more than one game at once, simply because of the way game development works, you can't always keep everyone employed if you're working on one game at once. This is exactly what Swen says Larian are doing, I note.

Also, you seem to be confused. AAA isn't an award or reward or something you "achieve". It's just about the manpower, spending, and coordination involved in making a game. You could make the best game in the world and not be AAA if you did it with 50 people and $30m.

 

[Zardnaar]

No this is nonsense. You're continuing to say things which just aren't true.

Plenty of triple A studios have worked on one game at a time, historically, and relatively few AAA studios reliably sell more copies than BG3 - this is a common delusion, because you hear the numbers of the biggest-selling games and assume that's "AAA games" in general, but most AAA games sell low millions, sometimes far less.

Once an AAA studio reaches a certain size, and Larian are there, it does behove them to work on more than one game at once, simply because of the way game development works, you can't always keep everyone employed if you're working on one game at once. This is exactly what Swen says Larian are doing, I note.

Also, you seem to be confused. AAA isn't an award or reward or something you "achieve". It's just about the manpower, spending, and coordination involved in making a game. You could make the best game in the world and not be AAA if you did it with 50 people and $30m.

When did Bioware become AAA t9 you then? I don't think it was BG 1 or 2 KoToR maybe Mass Effect yes?

It's their first big hit. Have to see where it ends up.

My idea of triple A are things like Bethesda or Ubisoft. I like Paradox Interactive for example but don't consider them triple A and they're bigger than Larian.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When did Bioware become AAA t9 you then? I don't think it was BG 1 or 2 KoToR maybe Mass Effect yes?

It's not a matter of "becoming AAA to me".

That's just not how it works.

It's based on the number of employees, the coordination involved, and the budget, as I've said. The numbers involved to really be AAA have been steadily increasing.

I don't know enough about the budgets and development of BG1/2 to speak on those, but as of Mass Effect, certainly Bioware were making AAA games. KotOR was borderline - we don't know the exact budget, it's estimated at $10m, which would put it at the very low end of AAA for 2003. Whereas we do know for Mass Effect 1 - that was $40m which was actually a fairly high AAA budget for 2007.

My idea of triple A are things like Bethesda or Ubisoft. I like Paradox Games for example but don't consider them triple A and they're bigger than Larian.

Uh-huh, but you're very confused, so that needs to be fixed.

Paradox Interactive are a publisher. They own several studios, including Paradox Development Studio (PDS), Harebrained Schemes, Triumph and a bunch of others. You're conflating Paradox Interactive - the publisher with Paradox Development Studio, who the people who actually make games.

PDS make the games you think of with Paradox - EU, HoI, CK, etc. - They have 150 employees, not "more than Larian", who have 400. So absolutely you are wrong. You're confusing the numbers of people in ALL the studios the publisher runs, and at the publisher itself with the actual studio.

It's similar with the other examples. Ubisoft is a publisher. It doesn't make any games, it publishes them. Various studios owned by Ubisoft, some of them with Ubisoft in their name, many without, make the actual games here's a list - List of Ubisoft subsidiaries - Wikipedia

By Bethesda, I presume you mean Zenimax? That's what most people call Zenimax and Zenimax prefers it that way. They're not even a publisher, they're a subsidiary - of Microsoft. Zenimax owns multiple studios, just like Ubisoft and Paradox Interactive. Zenimax owns id games, Arkane, and a bunch of others - perhaps most importantly, Bethesda Softworks, which is what Zenimax likes to hide behind, branding-wise. Bethesda Softworks is itself a subsidiary which has only one studio (it briefly owned two a while back), Bethesda Game Studios - That's the Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Starfield people. They have about 420 employees right now, so are almost exactly the same size as Larian.

What seems to be confusing you here is that Larian are a private company and not a subsidiary of anyone. They don't have or need a separate publisher.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not a matter of "becoming AAA to me".

That's just not how it works.

It's based on the number of employees, the coordination involved, and the budget, as I've said. The numbers involved to really be AAA have been steadily increasing.

I don't know enough about the budgets and development of BG1/2 to speak on those, but as of Mass Effect, certainly Bioware were making AAA games. KotOR was borderline - we don't know the exact budget, it's estimated at $10m, which would put it at the very low end of AAA for 2003. Whereas we do know for Mass Effect 1 - that was $40m which was actually a fairly high AAA budget for 2007.


Uh-huh, but you're very confused, so that needs to be fixed.

Paradox Interactive are a publisher. They own several studios, including Paradox Development Studio (PDS), Harebrained Schemes, Triumph and a bunch of others. You're conflating Paradox Interactive - the publisher with Paradox Development Studio, who the people who actually make games.

PDS make the games you think of with Paradox - EU, HoI, CK, etc. - They have 150 employees, not "more than Larian", who have 400. So absolutely you are wrong. You're confusing the numbers of people in ALL the studios the publisher runs, and at the publisher itself with the actual studio.

It's similar with the other examples. Ubisoft is a publisher. It doesn't make any games, it publishes them. Various studios owned by Ubisoft, some of them with Ubisoft in their name, many without, make the actual games here's a list - List of Ubisoft subsidiaries - Wikipedia

By Bethesda, I presume you mean Zenimax? That's what most people call Zenimax and Zenimax prefers it that way. They're not even a publisher, they're a subsidiary - of Microsoft. Zenimax owns multiple studios, just like Ubisoft and Paradox Interactive. Zenimax owns id games, Arkane, and a bunch of others - perhaps most importantly, Bethesda Softworks, which is what Zenimax likes to hide behind, branding-wise. Bethesda Softworks is itself a subsidiary which has only one studio (it briefly owned two a while back), Bethesda Game Studios - That's the Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Starfield people. They have about 420 employees right now, so are almost exactly the same size as Larian.

What seems to be confusing you here is that Larian are a private company and not a subsidiary of anyone. They don't have or need a separate publisher.

Paradox owns PDS I've been playing them for a while so don't pay to much attention to the structure just looked at the income.

Apparently BG3 has been dunked on by the big fish though because of its quality and its complete and no microtransactions.

Wife wants to play it but being stubborn because it's not on the switch. We have a perfectly good PS4 and Xbox sitting right there.

And the bear sex meme.