[pierrebeucher]

Can you be more specific about "big players denouncing the 'type of game' development behind BG3" ? I've heard a few things about BG3 development method being critized by some devs and/or companies but haven't read some source material yet.

EDIT: nevermind, Googling "baldur's gate 3 development critics" yields tons of results

[lizardking]

The sentiment that set of the firestorm was from an indie dev, and his point was perfectly reasonable. Once the pitchforks came out that details was lost.

[honeybadger1]

I was apart of the original thread, won't say who I am, but needless to say I am not in agreement with him. He is wrong, I don't really think I need to say why considering the firestorm was completely not in his favor.

I wrote my own opinion piece on the matter; and as someone who works in the software industry at one of the largest software companies in the world, he should not be defending practices of running developers ragged. Hard selling the world and delivering a polished turd full of bugs and broken promises until 2 years later with a few expensive add-ons, season packages, just to make a game more profitable and still not deliver.

[lizardking]

Okay, this is not the sentiment I was referring to. The tweet I thought set it off was from an indie dev essentially saying it wasn’t reasonable to expect BG 3 levels of output from smaller studios, which is a reasonable, probably unnecessary, sentiment.

[honeybadger1]

I agree with that point, just look at all the indie games on steam that out-rate and over-deliver. I think the issue that I am speaking to is what the triple-A companies turned this post into, they malformed his original point and make their own argument out of it.

It unfortunately continues to rub people wrongly on this non-intended sentiment from the original poster. He is caught in a marketing damage control tailwind that all of these developer directors and VP's latched onto for their own justifications.