D&D General WotC: 'Of Course We're Going To Do' Baldur's Gate 4

“Baldur’s Gate is an incredible game. And of course, we're going to do a successor."
baldurs-gate-3-review-in-progress.jpeg


In an interview with The Game Business, Wizards of the Coast's president John Hight touched on the company's video games plans for Dungeons & Dragons.

Hight told interviewer Christopher Dring “Baldur’s Gate is an incredible game. And of course, we're going to do a successor."

Larian Studios, which made Baldur's Gate 3, has previously indicated that is not going to be involved in any potential sequels.

However, the previously announced game that game studio Giant Skull is currently working on is not Baldur's Gate 4. Hight says "This is not the successor to [Baldur's Gate 3]. We go to Stig and his team to tell an incredible story and bring D&D to a very broad audience. Ideally, the game will appeal to D&D players because it will help them realise their imagination. But it’s also going to hopefully appeal to people that love playing action games, that love the Jedi games, that love God of War games." Giant Skull's game will be a single-player action-adventure game.

Giant Skull's Stig Asmussen spoke a little about that--as yet untitled--game: "A lot of us have grown up on Dungeons & Dragons. And for me, with a new company, this is something that we’re good at. We're good at working with partners. We're good at capturing the spirit of those worlds. It wasn't something that we could just walk away from. It was actually a pretty easy [decision]... Dungeons & Dragons is the definition of a playground. When we had the meeting in Renton [Washington], my mind opened up to the possibilities of what we could do. There’s still a lot of things that we have to abide by. There’s the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons. There are the worlds, player agency and choice, building a party, actions have consequences… those types of things."

Giant Skull was founded by Stig Asmussen in 2023. Asmussen previously was the game director of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor and Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, as well as God of War 3.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They had a loss in 2022. Delayed Bg3 to be safe and went all in. MSN has an article backing up my point by Ted litchfield 8 months ago.

It’s right there
They were not a triple a studio prior to Bg3. In some ways Bg3 was a gamble. It was a unbelievable one but if they had blown it and delivered a subpar game who knows
Video game development is always a gamble. BG3 was probably one of the safer bets this decade, seeing how well received the early access release was back in 2020.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Though it was the choice that could have blown up in their faces, if hypothetically it didn't take off.
yes, it was a bit of a gamble, but given that they basically broke even in 2022, the year before the release, they had the finances for it and even if it had not been as successful they probably would have easily made their money back and then some, given that in 2023 they had a 200M profit.

While of course there was somewhat of a risk involved, my point was that they were not on the brink of bankruptcy in 2022 and decided to go ‘all in’ then. The decision to do so was before 2022 already, and it was not a gamble to avoid bankruptcy that happened to pay off, as portrayed by the poster
 

They had a loss in 2022. Delayed Bg3 to be safe and went all in. MSN has an article backing up my point by Ted litchfield 8 months ago.

It’s right there
They were not a triple a studio prior to Bg3. In some ways Bg3 was a gamble. It was a unbelievable one but if they had blown it and delivered a subpar game who knows
A loss in 2022 is not the same thing as "verge of bankruptcy in 2022."

It would be honest to walk that particular claim back, no?
 

yes, it was a bit of a gamble, but given that they basically broke even in 2022, the year before the release, they had the finances for it and even if it had not been as successful they probably would have easily made their money back and then some, given that in 2023 they had a 200M profit.

While of course there was somewhat of a risk involved, my point was that they were not on the brink of bankruptcy in 2022 and decided to go ‘all in’ then. The decision to do so was before 2022 already, and it was not a gamble to avoid bankruptcy that happened to pay off, as portrayed by the poster
For sure, but it was still .ake or break territory: Larian was worried that perhaps the entire audience who would buy the game already had paid during Early Access, which would have been a painful situation for them.
 

MSN has an article backing up my point by Ted litchfield 8 months ago.
link? Given how completely counter to the actual article your last ‘summary’ was, I will need to read that myself…

They were not a triple a studio prior to Bg3. In some ways Bg3 was a gamble.
agreed, but not with bankruptcy around the corner in 2022. Had they failed, they would not have made hundreds of millions from the game and had not managed to climb the ladder to AAA studio but would have to stay at the DOS2 level of AA+.
 

link? Given how completely counter to the actual article your last ‘summary’ was, I will need to read that myself…


agreed, but not with bankruptcy around the corner in 2022. Had they failed, they would not have made hundreds of millions from the game and had not managed to climb the ladder to AAA studio but would have to stay at the DOS2 level of AA+.
Probably would have needed to shrink the company, so fortunately that didn't happen.
 

For sure, but it was still .ake or break territory: Larian was worried that perhaps the entire audience who would buy the game already had paid during Early Access, which would have been a painful situation for them.
yes, that would have been a problem but has that ever in the history of Early Access actually happened? To me the real risk is that maybe 30% of your audience already bought it during EA instead of the typical 20% (or whatever the actual numbers are), not 100% of it, and that still would have made it a huge success, just not as big
 


yes, that would have been a problem but has that ever in the history of Early Access actually happened? To me the real risk is that maybe 30% of your audience already bought it during EA instead of the typical 20% (or whatever the actual numbers are), not 100% of it, and that still would have made it a huge success, just not as big
Yes, it actually has, and BG3 Early Access sales would have made it one of the better selling turn based CRPGs ever.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top