Goronmon

What information in the leaks do you think prove how dangerous Microsoft is?

“I have never played the game but here are my strong opinions about it.” is the sort of commentary I’m seeing more and more of these days.

And I have to say, it’s not something I’m a huge fan of.

No one is really posting content to any of the alternatives really. Maybe if you are really into crypto-hype or other very niche topics, there will be a little content. But not much.

To be honest, I never use Wordpad.

Either I just need to edit something quick, where Notepad excels, or in going to use just about any other option for text editor or word processor.

It’s surprising to see how much attention this is getting. And I can’t help but think how many people commenting about it actually use it to any real degree.

…much cheaper blocks can perform the same task just as well.

We don’t actually know this since no one actually test it, just to be clear.

Unless you are going the “My minivan works just as well as Ferrari for driving to work” angle, which isn’t what the high-end tech segment is really about.

It’s not the best rated game of all time…

The context appears to be mainly about how having to develop for different consoles/hardware configurations/etc makes development harder. So, choosing PC as the “platform” in this context would be the worst possible option to choose.

I’m okay with this on the condition that that platform is PC.

You want developers to choose a specific set of hardware requirements and only develop games to target and work on that specific set of hardware specifications?

That sounds like a bad idea all around.

If the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 shows that gamers don’t like micro-transactions, does that mean games that sell well with micro-transactions is prove that gamers actually like them?

Just want to be clear on what the rules are for the logic here.

You would be far from the only person who has posted a link to an article/video they have never read/watched.

I did, did you?

To summarize the actual tweets/comments/etc that these videos (there are multiple) are panicking about.

1. Smaller studios aren’t going to be able to replicate the scale and complexity of BG3. So people shouldn’t be using BG3 as the bar to compare future titles/RPGs from other studios going forward. Larian is comparable in size (or even larger) to Bethesda when they released Skyrim, and no one has been able to compete directly with Skyrim either.

2. Not all games and RPGs need to be as complex and long as BG3. Expecting open-ended, 100 hour-long RPGs for every future game/RPG isn’t realistic. Not all games require that scope, it’s rare to get such a budget for this type of game, and even if you did, most companies won’t be able to replicate the game in a meaningful way. Just like how companies other than Rockstar would struggle to replicate the scale of games like GTA and RDR.

There, I’ve summarized multiple 20 min videos. Just without all the hand-waving and drama.

Nobody really expects RPG’s to be as big and deep as BG3…

Just to warn you, you will now be quoted in a future video about “Social media viciously attacks Larian for games that are too big and too deep!”

We as gamers should strive for games like BG3 because they were quality works that were made for the enjoyment of the player.

But that’s what the comments that people are taking as “criticisms of BG3” are talking about, and is the context for the video from OP. There aren’t developers saying “High quality games shouldn’t be the standard”.

I asked for examples of developers criticizing the scope of BG3, and you replied with examples. I guess I’m confused as to how I was supposed to know you weren’t talking about “complexity or how long it is” (aka. scope)?

But yes, if your point is “developers should make good games, and not bad games” (yes, I’m being reductionist) then sure, I agree with that, but that’s not really what I was trying to point out, and that’s not what the video was about.

I mean James Berg did though

Those aren’t criticisms of Larian or Baldur’s Gate 3. They are opinions that creating games at a certain scale isn’t something developers can just replicate at will. Just like Rockstar games aren’t something any studio can’t just go out and put together.

It’s like how someone would argue that not all books/novels need to be as long and complex as the Song of Ice and Fire series. Not all books need to be like those books, just like not all games need to be like BG3 (or GTA or RDR to use the other comparison).

BG3 is what AAA development should be if it was about making good products but at the end of the day these companies are here to make as much money as possible.

I think the quality of game, and lack of monetization, is certainly something that AAA games should strive for. I wouldn’t agree that all AAA needs to be as big and complex as BG3 though. Just as Elden Ring being a great game doesn’t mean that all similar games need to be massive and open-world in the same way.

Sounds more like a straw-man you’re criticizing than anything.

And Larian is definitely a AAA developer at this point. Once you have hundreds of people working on a game you aren’t a small developer anymore.

Where are the devs criticizing the scope of it?

It seems the summary of most of the posts are “smaller studies can’t create games as big as BG3” and “not every game/RPG needs to be as big and complex as BG3”.

Are those responses incorrect and how is that being critical of BG3?

If anything, they are critcizing the idea that BG3 is the game all RPGs need to strive to be.

“Good on him though. In general I wish devs were more rude to people who say stupid shit. They sure have to put up with a lot.” Other players suggested that Survivor, the game’s default difficulty mode, should be renamed to “I get 3 orange slices and a participation medal”.

“Devs need to spend more time shitting on people who I disagree with” is generally the way I read this type of sentiment.

Yeah, mine barely lasted to years before it just refused to boot.

WEI prevents ecosystem lock-in through hold-backs
We had proposed a hold-back to prevent lock-in at the platform level. Essentially, some percentage of the time, say 5% or 10%, the WEI attestation would intentionally be omitted, and would look the same as if the user opted-out of WEI or the device is not supported.

This is designed to prevent WEI from becoming “DRM for the web”.

At least this acknowledges that this proposal would in fact be “DRM for the web” if the only thing from preventing it from being that is an additional measure unrelated to the core implementation.

Not to mention, what prevents a future release of the feature either turning the percentage to 0% or removing the hold-back entirely?