I think the most important part is that it launched without DRM on GOG and was able to be pirated from day 1 and it STILL was a huge success because people knew that the game isn't trying anything shady to get even more money from you

It's just something people actually want to support and not like people feel like even if they buy the game they only have half an experience if they don't spend more money later

I really hope the next financial report from Larian is making people think differently about the necessity of putting aggressive DRM in their games

People don't pirate because they don't want to pay - they pirate because they don't trust the game to bit pull more shady shit later and not be worth it in the end

I have avoided reading much about the game. I am loving it, but I have no idea at what point in the game that I currently am. It could end in the next ten minutes and I'll be satisfied with my purchase, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's another 10+ hours. This is what I was waiting for Bethesda to release as the next Skyrim successor if they hadn't decided to milk that cow until troll cheese came out. It's everything I want in a game. Story, gameplay, length, affordability, fun, and no microtransactions making my efforts feel worthless.

So far, every article I've seen about Baldur's Gate 3's effect on the gaming industry has been horse shit. Other studios and publishers are not "panicking," they're not going to rethink microtransactions, and they're not going to be daunted by this release; some devs have said as much already along the lines of "Yeah don't expect this breadth and scope from us going forward, because it doesn't work for our games."
This game is not the industry-spanning "gotcha" these writers have been trying to make it out to be. AAA devs or publishers are going to continue their nonsense because people will continue to buy their shit anyway, and they know it.
All that said, BG3 is the best game I've played in a number of years and hands-down the best cRPG I've ever played. It smokes Divinity, Icewind Dale, the previous BG games, NWN, etc. So if any studios do happen to have a positive takeaway from this, maybe we'll see at least some of that polish in games down the line.

It’s also a rare example of where a massive budget without restrictions (relatively speaking) can lead to amazing results.

Usually one of two things happens: the publisher is tired of dumping money into a project then force it to market too early, or scope creep happens and the developers bite off way more than they can chew and there’s nothing they can do past a certain point.

Larian managed to dodge both of these bullets. Not by luck, of course. But they dodged them nonetheless.

Not exactly, though I see your point. I think it would be more accurate if McDonald's charged for ketchup, mustard, salt, drink cups, lids, straws etc.

Witcher 3, the Last of Us (ps3), Baldurs Gate 3, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Elden Ring, Read Dead Redemption 2 (offline), Zelda, etc...

There are plenty of triple A games that were well received that didn't involve gambling and mtx.

Doesn't mean people should accept their attempts to nickle and dime them.

Indeed, the job of most AAA game studios is to get as much money as possible from the gamers to their shareholders.

All 100% correct unfortunately. These companies put in micro transactions because they make a boatload of money off of them. End of story. Til that changes, they will continue to shoehorn them into games to sustain the unsustainable infinite growth/profit model. Until pissing us off costs them more than they gain from it, it ain't gonna change.

Yeah, that statement is so dumb. Even if it's hugely successful, a game of this type is made for a niche audience. That niche audience does hate microtransactions but they're in no way representative of the mainstream.

I mean tears of the kingdom make $700 million + and Diablo Immortal made 525 million in it's first year despite being almost universally rebuked online. Really seems like micro transactions have a really solid, if maybe not top tier return. Lots of companies try to make something like Horizon Zero Dawn and it totally flops instead.

or indeed hundreds of great selling AAA single player games?

It's important to note that the amount of single player AAA games has greatly diminished overtime. Most of those "hundreds" you're referring to are not in the last 10 years, and the big bucks have been in live service. So yeah BG3 did great but it was a huge, 6+ year gamble ultimately. I WANT those gambles, but businesses would rather push out cheaper games at a faster clip because they make money. People still buy them and they still pay for DLC/MTX like crazy. It's hard to compete against that.

Beautifully written and entirely spot on. The question is whether we will do anything about it. We probably have 10-30 years before this elite will entrench themselves forever with some kind of robot police that truly can't be overthrown. (And it's not like anyone is rising up now, even though the power is clearly with the workers)

And then this elite will Habsburg-jaw themselves into oblivion and all that remains of humanity are machines built in the name of shareholder profits. What a sad way for things to end.

That is where the microtransaction infestation occurs.

Horse armour has entered the chat.

Dude MTX are all over solo games too, what are you smoking

And...every single ubisoft game. And bethesda games. I could go on...

And Baldur's Gate is multiplayer. You can easily play 4-player online co-op.

Yup, this is why the last two Diablo games have been always online, no one is going to spend $25 on a skin macrotransaction when nobody else can even seen it.

I don't want the lesson to be learned that devs should only make single player games either. Baldur's Gate 3 itself is co-op, for instance, and Elden Ring has substantial online components for multiplayer and otherwise.

I've seen a bunch of good games being ruined by microtransactions and battlepasses. At least I believe that they could have had so much better sales and reputation if they didn't include it.

For example: Shadow of War. Deus Ex Mankind Divided. Good games. These had microtransactions hooked on as an after-thought. It didn't affect gameplay at all and could be completely ignored. Still they received so much hate for it. And then there are games adding microtransactions and nobody care. Most Ubisoft games for example. I think it has with who their target audience is. Though I can't see what DX and SoW audiences has in common. Do they have less casual players than Ubisofts games? Idk.

I feel like the revelation to gaming studios is not that people like a good product, it's that Larian was allowed to make one without investors demanding it be the shittiest thing since shit sandwiches.

If a great game like Elden ring would've had cosmetic sets you could buy, would it have undermined the "greatness" of the game? I really don't see it happening.

I agree with you that people mainly care about the game being good. However a game's budget is more or less fixed. If From had made a bunch of cosmetic sets it would be taking away resources from making the "main" game, and it may not have been as great and polished as it is.

Also, once you have microtransactions in a game, there's going to be a temptation to maximize the revenue gained from them, which can lead to the aggressive strategies you mention.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do mtx without ruining the game, but it's difficult. Without mtx, the only thing you have to maximize your revenue is to make the game as good as possible, and so everyone involved in the game's development is aligned towards that goal.

Once you add mtx, there will be people involved whose main goal is to maximize revenue from the mtx (and I'm not saying those people are evil or want the game to be bad; they're just doing their job). And so a sort of tug of war starts to happen between devoting resources and design decisions to make the game better, or getting people to buy your cosmetics. Finding the right balance through that mess is difficult.

I keep seeing the posts about OW2 where everyone is acting like blizzard is getting destroyed by the poor reviews, but, like you said, they still already made bank on these games in spite of all the complaints that have existed since launch. Blizzard just out here like:

They never are and this attitude is what got us in this microtransaction hell in the first place.

Nah, having to pay for cosmetics and stuff is just a tiny bit less bad than pay to win.

For full price games on release? No, they really aren't.

People always says "cosmetics are fine". They aren't. Cosmetics are gameplay. Humans love looking cool. They NEED it a lot of the time. The entire fashion industry wouldn't exist if looking cool wasn't a major part of human psyche. These MTX wouldn't sell if it wasn't. Locking all or most of the interesting looks behind additional paywalls is bullshit. And it's not OK. I don't engage with games that do that. There's plenty to play that don't abuse their customers.