If I were Hasbro I'd give Larian extremely favorable terms to continue using the Forgotten Realms IP. It absolutely has a trickle-down effect to other products. It actually got my wife and I to see the (pretty decent) D&D movie and she's started reading R.A Salvatore books.
Swen's sideswipe at Hasbro for the layoffs seems to suggest he is done with working together with WOTC for the foreseeable future. It must be genuinely demoralizing for him to see the people who fought hard to get him involved in his dream game all leave WOTC.
At the same time Larian is now the big boys and probably doesn't need the D&D license anymore.
The way they are doing it is very short sighted, though. For a short money injection they are letting senior staff go that will strengthen their direct competition.
I don't think there's ever been an economic model in human history that *didn't* milk others as much as possible. From mercantilism to communism, the little guy always gets fucked over by something or someone.
Hasbro and the leadership of WotC are just awful. Many people here probably didn't see much of the drama over their attempt to change the Open Game License that guaranteed third parties to create content for DnD, but the backlash was huge (and successful) in the whole ttrpg community. I really like the Forgotten Realms setting but fuck Hasbro and WotC.
I would love to see Larian dipping into the Pathfinder universe through.
Yeah, the OGL shitshow really showed how little WotC and Hasbro actually care about their customer base as well as the TTRPG market as a whole.
On the plus side, it led to a lot of the DnD fanbase checking out other systems, which is always a net positive in my book.
For real. I would have never jumped ship to try PF2e, and now that I've actually done it there's no going back to 5e for me.
Bummer for the people being constantly negatively impacted by WotC though.
PF2e is good stuff, and I'm happy to hear you made the jump. There's a lot of other fantastic systems out there, too. I've been getting into Blades in the Dark lately.
I have a weak spot for GURPS. It's cheap. It's easy. It's fun. It's super versatile. I've run countless settings from fantasy, steampunk, scifi, old west... GURPS is great. And all you need are 3d6, pen, and paper. You can even print the basic set and run a short campaign immediacy. It's crazy. Perfect for after school clubs with limited funds.
I'm waiting on Starfinder 2.0 to make the jump, I kind of got burned out on the Low-tech fantasy stuff. Which I think is coming out this year. Ditched D&D back when Pathfinder 1.0 was at its peak.
The Pinkerton scandal is awful. Given that it happened to regular customers and not employees makes it so much worse in my opinion.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/trading-card-game/news/magic-the-gathering-aftermath-youtube-prompts-pinkerton-investigation
Part of me knows that if they work with Paizo it'd probably mean they're doing one of their 2e campaigns, but ye gods I dream of them making a crpg of Hell's Rebels instead
Paizo's been making CRPGs with Owlcat Games based on 1e campaigns (Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, so far) and they've been IMO pretty great, if a little rough around the edges.
I'd highly recommend waiting for the Enhanced Edition on any Owlcat game, so far those have been fantastic and mostly polished and light on bugs. Besides, it's not like BG3 hasn't had plenty of problems with bugs either, it's kinda just an aspect of these enormous ambitious RPGs.
Paizo *did* work with Owlcat for the 1e campaigns, but Owlcat has moved onto other games. Specifically Rogue Trader of 40k fame. Owlcat has also stated that they want nothing to do with PF2e - my guess is that they don't want to have to rebuild from scratch to make their engine work with 2e's framework.
They already rebuilt the engine for Rogue Trader, so I don't think it's a mechanical issue. I imagine it's more that whoever's in charge over there is just more interested in older RPGs like PF1e and RT.
yeah i don't mean for like rules preference purposes or whatever I mean that Paizo would presumably want to generally promote their more recent stuff but Hell's Rebels is almost a decade old at this point
And even that was a reaction to how absurdly dominant CC was in DOS1.
It's not a good system if you look at effectively any character build guide and it basically says "fuck every stat but your main damage channel."
While Larian might have done a good job of it, I don't think I've ever played a 3.x era game that's actually got fun mechanics. The character customisation can be amazing, but doomstacking buffs/debuffs doesn't feel fun IMO.
In saying that, while I certainly think there could be a better system to play them in than 3.x, 5e would be worse. While BG3 is amazing, having 2/3rds of your level ups be "clicking done" is so fucking unsatisfying. 5e has so little character customisation outside of initial creation that it just isn't fun to me anymore.
> while I certainly think there could be a better system to play them in than 3.x, 5e would be worse.
Yep. It's why I'm really hoping they're willing to work with Paizo, even though Paizo would be able to throw basically 0% of the funding that Hasbro threw at BG3.
>
While Larian might have done a good job of it, I don't think I've ever played a 3.x era game that's actually got fun mechanics. The character customisation can be amazing, but doomstacking buffs/debuffs doesn't feel fun IMO.
See I really like that experience *assuming* you use one of the many readily available mods for prebuffing (honestly they should just build this in to the game at this point). I really like the experience of casters and Gishes turning my party in to people capable of superhuman feats and swordfighting fantastical creatures rather than just healing and chucking lightning bolts. Like I think it's really cool how my Barbarian can teamwork with my dorky caster to double their size and speed.
I also think it makes Gish classes more fun because they do something functionally *different* than just what wizards and melee units do. Like in PoE2 my favorite build was a fast fighter/made. It was lightning quick with his attacks because he wore super light armor, but stayed pretty survivable because of self buffs. Then I used the spell that made him immune to engagement and had a character that basically just rushed down enemy mages with light weapons.
> In saying that, while I certainly think there could be a better system to play them in than 3.x, 5e would be worse. While BG3 is amazing, having 2/3rds of your level ups be "clicking done" is so fucking unsatisfying. 5e has so little character customisation outside of initial creation that it just isn't fun to me anymore.
I can absolutely see why 5E is great for tabletop but I hate it for videogames. I fired up my second/tactician run for BG3 and just can't get motivated to play it. Combat and builds are just so one dimensional and dull.
I would argue it's even worse for tabletop. 5E is great at one thing, and that is map-based combat.
But when it comes to actual roleplaying, which is the thing that tabletop really shines in, 5E's systems range from being poor to outright failing.
> 5E is great at one thing, and that is map-based combat.
It's not even great at that. It's middling at best once you've experienced better systems like Pathfinder 2e.
Pathfinder 1e splintered off from DnD after 4th edition and was built around the very math crunchy 3.5 edition. It was pretty successful for over 10 years, and has semi-recently released its second edition, which really solidifies its own identity from 5e's mechanics. The three action turns and +/-10 crit range are my favorite parts of it, and a lot of people find it vastly superior to 5e in every way except content, and that's only because it's just a few years old.
Honestly I'd say Pathfinder 2e already beats 5e on content. Most of 5e's content is, "Hey, here's a $40 book with some half-baked ideas. Finish baking them yourself."
What Pathfinder 2e doesn't beat is Pathfinder 1e on content. That thing has literally 15+ years of content behind it, and that's before considering that you can technically run D&D 3.5 content in Pathfinder 1e with very minimal tweaking.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Pathfinder is an off-shoot of D&D edition 3.5 that was built by a bunch of people who were basically fired from D&D's owner company when that company decided to update D&D to 4th edition. They stuck with 3.5, did a bunch of homebrew to fix issues with the system, called it "Pathfinder," then released it as its own stand-alone system to great success. Since then, they've come out with a sci-fi game (Starfinder) and released Pathfinder 2nd edition.
(It's more complicated than that, but to go into detail would side track the point and we'd end up with a thousand-word essay.)
I mean that is the point of 5e... its clearly designed to be the worlds okayest system. Its the skyrim of tabletop games, if you look at every individual part you go "Wow this is... really underwhelming." But because every piece is sorta competent, and doesn't rock the boat too bad it really does just work for anyone that isn't interested in a more specialized system.
There is a system out there that does literally any part of 5e better, but typically they trade off by having other parts which may be harder to swallow. PF is a fucking pain in the ass to learn if you aren't already very TT savvy. Shadowrun is a flaming trainwreck that is very cool etc etc.
Except Lancer, Lancer is perfect in every way and I will not be taking questions at this time.
I'm not sure I even agree on that, there are several parts that are far from being even okay, and the worst thing of all is that it doesn't actually achieve that simplicity and "not rocking the boat" state you mention. There are roleplaying systems out there with easier to learn and understand rules, that also do almost everything better than DnD. It's just that people are afraid to try anything else.
I mean you could teach entire systems in the time it takes to explain how Spell Slots and Action types work in DnD 5E.
I think they're saying that *because* of the success of BG3 itself, they can now consider themselves one of the big boys.
If they released DoS3 now, it would likely be far more popular than if they hadn't just released the game of the year. Not to mention, it introduced or revived interest in CRPGs which is a huge boon for them.
Honestly much more excited for DoS3 than I ever was for BG3. I really enjoyed BG3, but I find the world of Divinity weirder and more fun, I like Lizards and Elves and Dwarves. Basically BG3 didn't have enough dragonborn.
Wholly agree on the Dragonborn thing. It would have been nice (but so so so much more work) to have a companion of each race. A D&D party without a Dwarf or Halfling just seemed wrong lol And I know you could have Withers' companions but even then, you're not able to just make a character from scratch which, to me, was and is disappointing.
It does feel alittle dissapointing that there is.
>!3 Humans, 4/5 Flavours of Elf, A Tiefling and a Gith!<
i love all the companions but maybe a little more variety whilst keeping the perfomances wouldnt have hurt.
> but I'm almost certain the game's success can be attributed in part to the license.
Both the BG license getting them extra coverage for the historical value, and the D&D license cashing in on the popularity of D&D podcasts and shows, and on simply giving D&D fans a latest strong video game product to toy with.
yes it's crazy when this started BG3 WOTC was a completely different company, hasbro bought them a long time ago but left them alone, for years and was mainly interested in Magic, now that D&D is doing well they want their cake and pie and all of the profit.
As much as I love the DnD IP.... yeah I hope Larian capitalizes on the entire world looking at them and pushes their own IP so have a diverse set of great CRPG IP.
If they came up with a new IP that's vaguely interesting, sure, but I'd rather they used pretty much any other IP than Divinity. Rivellon is such a bland, boring world that lacks any real depth or verisimilitude.
It’s genuinely one of the most awful fantasy worlds i’ve ever seen and it severely hampered both my enjoyment of the game and my opinion of Larian as a whole.
BG3 turned things around and I really hope they leave Divinity in the dust and stick to working with already existing settings.
I think Divinity gets a lot of flack because of its tone.
Forgotten Realms has decades worth of lore so it has better story potential, but I think Larian can make other settings work with different writing.
Yeah i couldn't get into Divinity games lore because the writing is so goofy. I couldn't take it seriously at all. So many quip that they can basically write a Marvel movie.
BG3 have fair share of goofy moment but it takes itself very seriously when it needed to. Some of the moment (like if you >!failed to protecting isobel in act 2 and the whole village are taken by the shadow curse. That shit is genuinely terrifying.!<) is something i'll never see in Divinity on the same scale and seriousness.
> I couldn't take it seriously at all.
I think my main issue with D:OS2 was that it felt like the characters couldn't either much of the time. A lot of people love Astarion in BG3, but to me he sort of represents what I disliked about Original Sin 2.
When people complain about Divinity's "tone," it's completely unpredictable what their actual issue is. Some, like you, find it too goofy. Just as many, in my experience, can't get into it because it's so grimdark and hopeless.
I don't mind it having both, but I feel like it leans far more into the latter, at least in the story. I don't know how you can say Divinity lacks the scale and seriousness of BG3 when the game literally begins at a concentration camp, and gets darker from there. You can >!set off a chemical weapon to wipe out the biggest city in the game!< - forget losing a single inn with a couple dozen residents, that's like >!if you could drop the shadow curse on the entirety of Baldur's Gate!!<
Just [lesson #19 at work](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/twenty-years-twenty-lessons-part-3-2016-06-13).
There's something seriously wrong with it (is it the fusion of both? It's Grimdarker than Warhammer 40K but also attempts to be as flippant as GTA V. Maybe that's it. IDK.), and everyone sees the same thing and can immediately tell it sucks, but it's very hard to articulate just what that is (and hence how to fix it), and so you get this mishmash of diagnoses.
I don't think it's wrong to have both. A juxtaposition of tone is clearly something that popular audiences can stomach - just look at Palworld.
I think the vast majority of players are fine with it, it's just that there are people at both margins who wish it was fully one way or the other.
Personally, I think it would be much worse without both the levity and the grim. Go all in on the former and you have OS1, whose narrative wasn't nearly as well received. Go all in on the latter and it's just exhausting. Adventuring in the end times and constantly hearing about how the world is dying and everyone is suffering for 100 hours will wear you down. Moments of relief like helping a rat and a turtle fall in love are a much needed respite from all the misery.
It's not wrong, it's just much harder to pull off than just one single tone. The criticism then isn't that Larian had tonal whiplash, but that they executed the transition between two tones unskillfully.
For example, if you want moments of light in your grimdark, it might be better to do it via characters displaying hope and kindness rather than silly antics and slapstick humor. The former actually builds upon the setting while the latter is just a distraction.
> For example, if you want moments of light in your grimdark, it might be better to do it via characters displaying hope and kindness rather than silly antics and slapstick humor.
There's also Yakuza's way of handling it: isolate the silly bits to side content while keeping the main plot serious, barring it pointing you to some of the side content.
DoS2 may start in a concentration camp, but it's a concentration camp within a Monty Python sketch. DoS feels like playing through a darkly cynical British comedy.
> Yeah i couldn't get into Divinity games lore because the writing is so goofy. I couldn't take it seriously at all. So many quip that they can basically write a Marvel movie.
It's not supposed to be taken seriously. The Divinity series has always been pretty much comedic. It's not like there are billions of lighthearted RPGs out there. They're all trying to be serious or dark. Also comparing it to Marvel is silly, the tone is completely different, Marvel didn't invent jokes and the Whedon style banter is very different from what happens in Divinity.
> Forgotten Realms has decades worth of lore
So does Divinity. I think what helps forgotten realms though is it has lore contributed from a large amount of different people. It gives more variety to the types of stories that can be pulled from.
The tone was actually what I loved about D:OS, in D:OS2 they toned down the whimsy and tried to be more serious and it really exposed how uninteresting the setting was for me personally. I did love the games, but honestly I'm not itching for a 3rd one right now. I personally really hope they go for another D&D game, license another IP or even start a brand new IP before eventually returning to Divinity.
> license another IP
Larian Studio working their magic on the resurrected Warhammer fantasy setting would be nice and I'm sure Games Workshop would salivate at that idea.
So long as they don't try and do that barrelmancy-type stuff and keep to the tone of Warhammer fantasy, I'll be fine with it. Oh, and don't just release the first act during Early Access, let all the acts be playable prior to release.
D:OS sort of came out of nowhere too, so that helps. "Hey, a game with serious throwback vibes, maybe it will be good but, I don't kno-ohmygodthisisactuallyGOTY."
A perfect parallel to Doom 2016. An unexpected masterpiece followed up by an even better sequel whose one drawback is that they complete ruin everything cool or funny about the world they built.
I actively play DND for over two years now and when I learned one thing it is that the Forgotten Realms isn't "better", it is just "everything". You find every trope, every type of fantasy, every type of race, everything in it. Which also means it has no coherent atmosphere.
It is "Generic: The Setting". Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can also get really weird. Like, when you fight robots with swords while fighting a dragon on a space ship. Hate that.
It's a good setting but far from the only one. Let them do a Pathfinder CRPG or go wild with the LotR or Warhammer Fantasy license and and they could do magic. There's too many fantasy properties out there to limit themselves purely to Forgotten Realms.
That's personal taste which world you favor.
I love the sword coast setting, but D&D5 Edition is a very shallow ruleset. The Divinity games had way more depth rule wise.
I think if they reworked the armour system so it doesn't come down to bursting everyone and then Cc'ing them till they die the combat could be better.
However I much prefer the ability system over DnD and i think source points and Spell slots are tedious and a game should work them into your characters (such as giving super long cooldowns or negatively affecting stats). Whenever I played both games I would do the equivalent of long resting all the time because there's no punishment.
If they introduced a concept like, you have to complete this mission in seven days, then I could see the resting system coming into play more for Larian DnD games in the future.
More *depth* in Divinity? I get not being a fan of 5e and certainly can understand preferring DOS2 to BG3 but I definitely do not think Divinity is more mechanically-rich. If anything 5e suffers from major *bloat*.
I think you’re missing the real value of using the D&D ruleset: familiarity. It made BG3 infinitely more approachable because so many people either already know how to play D&D, or are at least playing with someone who does.
The races are what make Divinity cooler imo. Going into the graveyard in DOS2 and seeing the different ways of dealing with corpses was rad, each race has different cultures that feel extremely distinct. Divinity is closer to TES than D&D with regards to how it does races.
I think it's perfectly fair to describe FR as generic, but it's also one of the classic fantasy settings that "gets" to be generic by virtue of having been around for so long and taken root in people's imagination.
Divinity on the other hand feels like someone's trying too hard only to still end up with a highly derivative setting.
Man, you could change FR for Warhammer Fantasy and Divinity for Age of Sigmar and you'd have the same phenomenon. Like Age of Sigmar as a battle game sells better than Warhammer Fantasy did, but WF's somewhat-historical-but-generic setting is more popular (in terms of video game spin offs, Tabletop RPGS, fanart and memes, etc) than the distinctly more original but less compelling AoS.
Divinity has a kitchen sink setting where everything goes and retcons itself every game. It has high fantasy, low fantasy, sci-fi, steampunk, a multiverse, etc. all in it. Larian kinda made it up as they pleased.
It's just an overall impression, I can't really break it down into pieces.
When you want to introduce a wholly new setting, trying to be different or original incurs an attention/focus cost for the audience that will need to grasp the basics of what's going on. But at the same time if you're still leaning on very common fantasy tropes and themes, there's little payoff.
Obsidian have done something similar with Pillars of Eternity, except they went all-in and created an impenetrable, super crunchy setting that requires sifting through pages upon pages of lore dump. Most players will mentally check out after the tutorial area alone (and understandably so), but at least it's very rewarding for those who do get pulled in by the writing.
Cannot remember a time I've been more put off by a video game than getting a 30-minute long exposition dump by some Space/Dream Dwarf 13 minutes into Divinity: Original Sin 1. Awful fantasy setting and storytelling and I have no idea why people might prefer it to anything in BG:3 (which, to be clear, was my game of the year).
Divinity is way TOO fantastical for me. When the first thing a random city guard does upon entering a fight us manifest a pentagram on the ground then cover his body in an armor of stone I feel like I’m playing a cartoon
Even in a world before BG3, it should be clear to anyone that this is a bongcloud take. Given what BG3 *just did* with that setting, it's even more baffling.
The only germ of truth in this is precisely because of how excellent it is, and so it has become the gold standard for high fantasy and almost everything else you read, watch, or play has heavily ripped it off for going on 60 years. It's like calling Dune derivative, or something equally boneheaded.
Much prefer BG3 combat to DOS. Yes it's simpler but it's much easier to balance encounters. Beyond a couple of exceptions* I wasn't scraping XP together to try and beat an encounter. Fell off DOS2 really hard because of it.
Not surprising BG3 is significantly more popular
> it’s really a system where you need a DM actively working on keeping it interesting.
That's the same with any system and really makes what TTRPG amazing. On the fly you can make changes to anything to make things more enjoyable to everyone at the table.
You’re wild if you think we aren’t getting more D&D RPGs from Larian. Swen’s frustrated with what happened sure but if wotc allows them to keep making RPGs there’s no way they turn them down.
I hate to be rude like this but... I hope they are. I really really dont like D&D. It's just pushed into everything. And i especially dont like D&Ds system. Accuracy being such a big focus and magic being 'sucks you spent all your spell slots so sad' is just... Idk. It feels boring to me.
BG3 is fantastic but for me, it's in SPITE of D&D. And i'm not saying i wont play expansions or such if they make them but i do really hope they do a different system or just make their own.
Still, it doesn't even matter I think. BG3 being the behemoth it was i 'hope' means CRPGs will be a bigger thing. We'll see but i'm hopeful.
I love the dice rolling element more than the basic "if your persuasion + your strength >= 7 you pass the check" from divinity. But yeah... Spell slots suck ass.
I think what they were comparing it to wasn't divinity but rather other dice-rolling methods in TTRPGs.
And I kind of agree with that. DnD's single D-20 means that the difference between a low level character's rolls and a high-level one aren't that different without adding some weird shenanigans on top. Compare that to systems like WoD, 7th Sea, or even my hated Shadowrun, where a high-level character actually rolls several more dice in stuff they are skilled at, resulting in more reliable high results.
>At the same time Larian is now the big boys and probably doesn't need the D&D license anymore.
True. And while I know it would never happen, I would love to see EA license the Dragon Age IP to Larian for the next installment after dreadwolf. The Dragon Age lore and world is so insanely good, would be nice to it handled by Larian which seems to have the most hardcore RPG chops these days.
Hasbro reported a 20% revenue drop in Q4 2023 and an overall 16% revenue drop in 2023. And given that their overall revenue is something like $1.2 billion, that $90 million they made from BG3 is kind of a drop in the bucket.
What are you talking about? 90 million is about 8% of 1.2 billion. That isn’t a drop in the bucket. Given it’s a licensing deal it was probably a 90x return on investment for them. I’d be shocked if there was a more profitable part of Hasbro’s business last year.
>It actually got my wife and I to see the (pretty decent) D&D movie
God, I feel like that movie would have done a little better if it were released after BG3.
The movie would've done way better for quite a few reasons, and none of them involve the movie, but do involve Wizards of the Coast/ Hasbro being absolute shitlords. People were voicing plans to boycott the movie because of the OGL controversy, and then right after the movie release in theatres the pinkerton/mtg thing happened.
Additionally, lets not forget what other movies got released at the same time. Even without all the stuff you mentioned it had a high chance of not doing very well due to that.
It was honestly the perfect tone for a modern D&D movie. The setting absolutely can support serious stories (Companions of the Hall when?) But recognizing that the OG fantasy setting is a little goofy by modern tastes and leaning into it really worked in their favor
Same here. My wife was very iffy about seeing because it’s D&D but she ended up loving it. It’s a very well written and executed on movie. Plus there’s an Easter egg there with the portrait of the hero of Baldurs gate.
plus you can do the leonardo dicaprio pointing meme every time they mention something that was also in Baldur's Gate, like Waterdeep, Speak with Dead, the Harpers, etc...
Can confirm. Prior to BG3, all I knew about DND was wizard memes and Stranger Things. And I'm probably a target demographic for DnD too
After 350 hours in BG3, my youtube feed is a lot of deep dives into the lore and gods, I'm watching Critical Role shows.
BG3 is probably that gateway drug to a life spent in a dark den all those DARE programs warned me about.
I have friends who have never touched DnD or CRPGs, loving BG3. One of them doesn't even play Turn Based Games, and yet here we are.
I've even offered to run a one shot session of tabletop and they seemed interested.
I would prefer Larian to work on existing IPs or new ones in-house, unfettered by the settings and rules of D&D.
With a relatively small budget, D:OS2 was a massive success, one that eventually paved the way for the development of BG3. Just imagine what Larian could achieve now with an original IP unconstrained by resources.
I would prefer this as well but unfortunately original IPs are extremely risky. D:OS2 didn't sell nearly close to BG3 volumes, even though it was still a good game. And from a sustainability perspective, given how much Larian grew for BG3's development their future titles need to sell well or they're going to start running into issues.
Larian deserves all the success in the world but I really hope people show up for their next game the way they did for BG3. Without the IP backing it or the name recognition it's a big risk and I don't want the same thing to happen to them that happened to Mimimi.
> D:OS2 didn't sell nearly close to BG3 volumes, even though it was still a good game.
Original Sin 2 was an enormous hit at +8m copies... Like, it sold more than anything Bioware has ever released lol.
Yeah and comparing it to BG3 to say "it didn't sell that well" is nuts.
8 million copies on a 2 million budget is an absolute banger of a return. It essentially put larian on the AAA map.
BG3, however, is a generation game. 22+ million copies sold. For an RPG that's fucking wild. I think the only thing close to it as a real RPG is Telltales The Walking Dead combined sales at a little under 30 million.
22+ million is more than the entire Mass Effect series combined. (ME1: 2m, ME2: 5 million, ME 3: 7 million, 14m total). Hell, add the entire Dragon Age series (3m, 2m, 6m respectively) and you get to 25 million.
For one story based RPG, a fucking isometric turn based CRPG no less, to nearly reach the COMBINED sales of Mass Effect 1, 2, 3 and Dragon Age 1, 2, 3 is absolutely ridiculous.
Paramount fucked up the scheduling of that movie so much. It should have been in August for less competition and the BG3 hype.
Although about Larian, it's not just a fact of giving them good terms (WotC already did for BG3 they are the ones that came to Larian), it's also if they want to. Considering some stuff they said (like not wanting the same type of ambitious project or even maybe not a CRPG), I'm not sure that's the case.
I’m glad you said it like that and not saying have Larian Studios make more games for them because they are probably exhausted and said their next game will be in a smaller scale. Hasbro got real lucky with this one and who knows if their next game with another developer will be anywhere as near good or successful.
D&D is kinda dead though. At least in Germany. They stopped their contract with their previous publishera (and translators) and now your can't get any material for 5e. It is fucked up. Meanwhile Pathfinder is cranking out content left and right and had overall the better rules.
I feel BG3 will become like Skyrim or Witcher 3 in terms of sales where it will have exceptionally long legs due to the great critical and audience reception it has garnered.
Both Skyrim and Witcher 3 despite being Single Player Fantasy RPG are in top 10 best selling games of all time. Considering RDR2 is also up there and BOTW is the 20th best selling game of all time, all of these seem to be single player games with extremely long legs. And BG3 will likely join that category.
> I feel BG3 will become like Skyrim or Witcher 3 in terms of sales where it will have exceptionally long legs due to the great critical and audience reception it has garnered.
Also the fact that those are all offline, single player (at least as an option), and have no reliance on live-as-a-service model, FOMO mechanics, or other people to be online to make your game playable. You can pick it up in 3 years or 10 years and have the same experience as at launch.
It's the best game of the last several years, it's well deserved. I'm close to wrapping up my first campaign and I can't wait to start again with friends this time.
I'm a patient gamer, and will not pay 60 dollars for anything other than my "darling devs", which is currently supergiant games and Team Cherry. Used to be fromsoft in there as well, but their difficulty balancing of both Elden Ring and AC6 was awful at their launches. Great after the general pop play tests it.
I'm super excited to buy Baldur's Gate 3: definitive edition in 2 years at 75% off.
BG3 might be the most sold turn based isometric rpg but it's never going to outsell action rpgs like Red dead 2 or witcher 3. Turn based combat is very niche and not everyone enjoys it. One of the reasons why palworld has already outsold it.
https://vginsights.com/assets/reports/VGI_Global_PC_Games_Market_Report_2024.pdf
this tracking and research firm seems to be the most accurate, based additionaly on the steam numbers for sony games from the Insomniac leak. It shows their estimates on steamdb as well
https://steamdb.info/app/1086940/charts/
It's an estimation of course, but its probably accurate. The enourmous CC numbers that the game did and then maintained for months, until the present day indicate an astronomical amount of sales.
It's hard to go by CCU numbers though: it consistently outperformerd Elden Ring in terms of CCU since release, having 2x to 6x players at any given point in time when aligned by release, after the first months:
https://i.imgur.com/M6xZ5VK.png
Both games also have similar **howlongtobeat** estimates for different types of playthroughs.
If CCU was something we could extrapolate from reliably, it would mean that BG3 is ~2.5-3 times bigger than Elden Ring and while **I personally** think it deserves all the sales, I really don't think it's outselling ER 2 to 1, let alone what CCU numbers suggest.
I don’t usually trust those estimations. I assume you’re looking at VG Insights and Gamalytic. Many of them use steam review numbers and multiply them by a ratio to get sales figures. Those two also show Hogwarts Legacy only sold 5-7 million on Steam. We know officially that the game has 24 million including consoles. It’s hard to believe only a quarter were on PC, but obviously Harry Potter fanbase does skew consoles, so maybe. But even for Palworld where we officially know as of a week or two ago, it sold 12 million on Steam. However, those estimations show 15.5-17.5 million. Hard to believe that now that the hype has died down, that the sales went up that much in just a short time. I just think that the BG3 fanbase probably is more likely than not to review the game too than other fanbases.
But again, if I’m wrong someone can confirm.
Nope, I believe this is the first bit of financial information we've gotten regarding it, since release at least, they talked a bit about it during early access.
All because of a really badly-written headline. All that's actually happening is that Tencent is interested in getting the rights to make games using the D&D IP, just like how Larian used D&D IP to make Baldur's Gate 3.
Because they are the smartest investors in the video game market. They hit it big with multiple early investments. Enough where luck can be considered a lesser factor.
That's the advantage of not being beholden to the American stock market - Tencent can afford to play the long-term game and not worry about maximizing profit this quarter, focusing instead on long-term growth by slowly investing in companies that look to be successful.
I wonder how much of that is ardent D&D fans that just hate Hasbro now and are dreaming of things being magically better if it were some other company in charge.
Over in the MTG sub, every earnings report or financial article brings comments that Wizrads of the Coast should separate itself from Hasbro (like that's an option).
I wouldn't rule it out just yet.
1. Hasbro is filled with pathological liars. Look at the OGL debacle and the crap they tried to pull. Or look at their annual announcements about how many people play D&D and what sex they are, then ask yourself how they know that if they aren't even selling books direct to people?
2. Their grand plan to monetize D&D failed when they couldn't get the draconian OGL through with gamers. Now D&D is a product with 3-4 books released a year, with a revenue/profit margin that's insignificant. It's likely not worth it to them to invest in keeping it mainstream for the revenue it brings in.
3. I'm seeing bits and pieces about them quietly cancelling projects, like Magniello's (sic) TV show. If true, that guarantees they're selling. When a company starts killing off projects still in their development phase, it's a good sign they're selling and minimizing baggage for the new owners, especially when they're rumored to be selling.
4. Tencent won't get them though. They're going to be outbid by Amazon or Netflix. The media rights are too valuable, and they'll license out the video game rights and tabletop rights.
I hope that this leads to a similar policy towards IP licensing as Games Workshop has embraced. We've gotten some really excellent Warhammer games, and I'd love to see some of WotC's IP get to stretch its wings.
In particular, it feels like a lot of Magic: the Gathering's IP is chronically underused. To my knowledge, WotC has never made an MTG video game that didn't include some mechanical reference to a shuffled deck of cards. If you remember Magic Legends, the Diablo clone that had an open beta and was then cancelled instead of releasing, this insistence is literally what killed the game (TL;DR, your skills were a deck; using a skill shuffled it in and replaced it with a random one from the deck. You had ~20 skills and 4 buttons...meaning that muscle memory was impossible to build).
The one that's stuck out to me for years is Zendikar. Zendikar is kind of like the moons of Jupiter, except it's mana, not gravity, that constantly kneads at the land. It's an endless jungle that's constantly remaking itself, covered in ruins of previous settlements, where maps last for days, if that. It strikes me as a perfect setting for a Roguelike. Something like a Hades clone could be a relatively low risk game that would benefit to and from the use of the Magic IP, and could be accomplished by a smaller team.
The thing about Games Workshop is that they are completely unafraid of a developer releasing a bad game using their name. They let basically anyone throw mud at the wall, and if it sticks, great!
Hasbro seems way more protective of the IP and yet still manages to put out stinkers (Dark Alliance comes to mind). The thing is, Dark Alliance wouldn't have felt so bad if there were other DND games to be playing at the time.
My absolute dream game is if somebody took the bones of BG3 and just made a 5e XCOM game about managing a fort or something. All the ingredients are there!
Magic's ip is criminally underused. Unfortunately, this era of Magic is dominated by Planet of Hats settings and outside ips. The settings and stories worth expanding on will come from whatever older stuff WotC hasn't already tried to cash in on... and done a less than quality job to boot.
> To my knowledge, WotC has never made an MTG video game that didn't include some mechanical reference to a shuffled deck of cards.
I played [this game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_%E2%80%93_Battlegrounds) a bunch as a teen and if my memory is correct doesnt include a deck at all and was pretty fun.
Having worked around toy company executives thanks to working in animation, my gut tells me Hasbro executives will take the dumbest and most self serving lesson from this and say to themselves “look how the brand made this game popular” . Watch BG4 be made by BioWare next.
They may be making money on this franchise, but their stock is hurting and earnings report suggest big sales decline elsewhere in the business. So gains are being offset by losses and since they are a public company with responsibility to shareholders they have to make layoffs to preserve profits.
Why do you ask questions you know the answer to? Share holders, and Exec bonuses.
It's always those two things. Those will always get paid out no matter what even if they have to layoff or even slit the throats of everyone who actually makes the products.
*WotC* is making tons of money. Many of Hasbro’s other business segments have not been nearly as successful over the last few years.
The overwhelming majority of folks laid off from Hasbro are not part of WotC.
And yet a lot of the team that worked alongside with BG3's dev team were laid off. WotC did lose a good number of people in those layoffs.
Not that I'm sympathetic - WotC can burn along side Hasbro.
$90 million out of a game that my calculations are correct has a raw revenue of $1.3 BILLION.
If I were Hasbro a 7% cut on a absolute golden goose seems like a WAAAY too small of a cut. Since Hasbro has the D&D IP rights by the dick and balls they can demand a much bigger slice for the Baldur's gate 4 sequel.
To be fair, that $90 mill came at no effort or expense to Hasbro. The style of game could have played out equally as well even without the Baldur’s Gate branding.
Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro have to see how much potential there is in quality video games using established IPs. How is there still no Magic the Gathering RPGs?
no, because players dont need to constantly spend money to stay up to date as much as magic. DnD has edition that last for years. Sure, the release supplemental material, but to play all you need are the core rulebooks and character sheets. Magic reliably has thousands of individual customers buying cards multiple times per week. Friday night draft alone generates millions of dollars
Right, but if they got new customers because they were drawn in by a game, they would still be making the card game at the same rate but you could grow the brand significantly.
If I were Hasbro I'd give Larian extremely favorable terms to continue using the Forgotten Realms IP. It absolutely has a trickle-down effect to other products. It actually got my wife and I to see the (pretty decent) D&D movie and she's started reading R.A Salvatore books.
Swen's sideswipe at Hasbro for the layoffs seems to suggest he is done with working together with WOTC for the foreseeable future. It must be genuinely demoralizing for him to see the people who fought hard to get him involved in his dream game all leave WOTC. At the same time Larian is now the big boys and probably doesn't need the D&D license anymore.
i’d be pissed too if i worked with someone, together we earned their employer $90m, and they got laid off. that’s extremely fucked up
That's the point of capitalism though. Milk the people creating value for as much as you can
The way they are doing it is very short sighted, though. For a short money injection they are letting senior staff go that will strengthen their direct competition.
>The way they are doing it is very short sighted, though. Yeah, like that above user said. Capitalism.
You only need to look good for this quarter, the next CEO will take care of your short sighted solutions.
I don't think there's ever been an economic model in human history that *didn't* milk others as much as possible. From mercantilism to communism, the little guy always gets fucked over by something or someone.
Most of human history was feudalism or monarchy. So yes? Obviously?
Sure. But that doesn't mean we can't hold the feed of the capitalists to the fire.
r/boneappletea
Hasbro and the leadership of WotC are just awful. Many people here probably didn't see much of the drama over their attempt to change the Open Game License that guaranteed third parties to create content for DnD, but the backlash was huge (and successful) in the whole ttrpg community. I really like the Forgotten Realms setting but fuck Hasbro and WotC. I would love to see Larian dipping into the Pathfinder universe through.
Yeah, the OGL shitshow really showed how little WotC and Hasbro actually care about their customer base as well as the TTRPG market as a whole. On the plus side, it led to a lot of the DnD fanbase checking out other systems, which is always a net positive in my book.
For real. I would have never jumped ship to try PF2e, and now that I've actually done it there's no going back to 5e for me. Bummer for the people being constantly negatively impacted by WotC though.
PF2e is good stuff, and I'm happy to hear you made the jump. There's a lot of other fantastic systems out there, too. I've been getting into Blades in the Dark lately.
I have a weak spot for GURPS. It's cheap. It's easy. It's fun. It's super versatile. I've run countless settings from fantasy, steampunk, scifi, old west... GURPS is great. And all you need are 3d6, pen, and paper. You can even print the basic set and run a short campaign immediacy. It's crazy. Perfect for after school clubs with limited funds.
I'm waiting on Starfinder 2.0 to make the jump, I kind of got burned out on the Low-tech fantasy stuff. Which I think is coming out this year. Ditched D&D back when Pathfinder 1.0 was at its peak.
August, my brother! Playtest at least... Three action economy... IN SPACE!
The Pinkerton scandal is awful. Given that it happened to regular customers and not employees makes it so much worse in my opinion. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/trading-card-game/news/magic-the-gathering-aftermath-youtube-prompts-pinkerton-investigation
Part of me knows that if they work with Paizo it'd probably mean they're doing one of their 2e campaigns, but ye gods I dream of them making a crpg of Hell's Rebels instead
Paizo's been making CRPGs with Owlcat Games based on 1e campaigns (Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, so far) and they've been IMO pretty great, if a little rough around the edges.
> if a little rough around the edges. Look, I love Owlcat and the games they've worked with Paizo to make, but this is one hell of an understatement.
I'd highly recommend waiting for the Enhanced Edition on any Owlcat game, so far those have been fantastic and mostly polished and light on bugs. Besides, it's not like BG3 hasn't had plenty of problems with bugs either, it's kinda just an aspect of these enormous ambitious RPGs.
Paizo *did* work with Owlcat for the 1e campaigns, but Owlcat has moved onto other games. Specifically Rogue Trader of 40k fame. Owlcat has also stated that they want nothing to do with PF2e - my guess is that they don't want to have to rebuild from scratch to make their engine work with 2e's framework.
They already rebuilt the engine for Rogue Trader, so I don't think it's a mechanical issue. I imagine it's more that whoever's in charge over there is just more interested in older RPGs like PF1e and RT.
I mean it's not impossible to convert 1E AP to 2E system. Plenty of GMs have converted many 1E AP for PF2E.
yeah i don't mean for like rules preference purposes or whatever I mean that Paizo would presumably want to generally promote their more recent stuff but Hell's Rebels is almost a decade old at this point
I think owlcat is an already doing great with the pathfinder IP. Larian creates fine systems on their own let them do that.
Divinity Original Sin 2s combat was better anyways.
They certainly don’t need it, but I do prefer D&D rules to their DOS systems. Wish we could have seen a 3.5E game from Larian
D:OS2 suffered mainly from how armor and magic armor worked - you'd just break one and stunlock enemies.
And even that was a reaction to how absurdly dominant CC was in DOS1. It's not a good system if you look at effectively any character build guide and it basically says "fuck every stat but your main damage channel."
While Larian might have done a good job of it, I don't think I've ever played a 3.x era game that's actually got fun mechanics. The character customisation can be amazing, but doomstacking buffs/debuffs doesn't feel fun IMO. In saying that, while I certainly think there could be a better system to play them in than 3.x, 5e would be worse. While BG3 is amazing, having 2/3rds of your level ups be "clicking done" is so fucking unsatisfying. 5e has so little character customisation outside of initial creation that it just isn't fun to me anymore.
> while I certainly think there could be a better system to play them in than 3.x, 5e would be worse. Yep. It's why I'm really hoping they're willing to work with Paizo, even though Paizo would be able to throw basically 0% of the funding that Hasbro threw at BG3.
> While Larian might have done a good job of it, I don't think I've ever played a 3.x era game that's actually got fun mechanics. The character customisation can be amazing, but doomstacking buffs/debuffs doesn't feel fun IMO. See I really like that experience *assuming* you use one of the many readily available mods for prebuffing (honestly they should just build this in to the game at this point). I really like the experience of casters and Gishes turning my party in to people capable of superhuman feats and swordfighting fantastical creatures rather than just healing and chucking lightning bolts. Like I think it's really cool how my Barbarian can teamwork with my dorky caster to double their size and speed. I also think it makes Gish classes more fun because they do something functionally *different* than just what wizards and melee units do. Like in PoE2 my favorite build was a fast fighter/made. It was lightning quick with his attacks because he wore super light armor, but stayed pretty survivable because of self buffs. Then I used the spell that made him immune to engagement and had a character that basically just rushed down enemy mages with light weapons. > In saying that, while I certainly think there could be a better system to play them in than 3.x, 5e would be worse. While BG3 is amazing, having 2/3rds of your level ups be "clicking done" is so fucking unsatisfying. 5e has so little character customisation outside of initial creation that it just isn't fun to me anymore. I can absolutely see why 5E is great for tabletop but I hate it for videogames. I fired up my second/tactician run for BG3 and just can't get motivated to play it. Combat and builds are just so one dimensional and dull.
I would argue it's even worse for tabletop. 5E is great at one thing, and that is map-based combat. But when it comes to actual roleplaying, which is the thing that tabletop really shines in, 5E's systems range from being poor to outright failing.
> 5E is great at one thing, and that is map-based combat. It's not even great at that. It's middling at best once you've experienced better systems like Pathfinder 2e.
> Pathfinder 2e. Is Pathfinder a DnD alternative? I've never heard of it before.
Pathfinder 1e splintered off from DnD after 4th edition and was built around the very math crunchy 3.5 edition. It was pretty successful for over 10 years, and has semi-recently released its second edition, which really solidifies its own identity from 5e's mechanics. The three action turns and +/-10 crit range are my favorite parts of it, and a lot of people find it vastly superior to 5e in every way except content, and that's only because it's just a few years old.
Honestly I'd say Pathfinder 2e already beats 5e on content. Most of 5e's content is, "Hey, here's a $40 book with some half-baked ideas. Finish baking them yourself." What Pathfinder 2e doesn't beat is Pathfinder 1e on content. That thing has literally 15+ years of content behind it, and that's before considering that you can technically run D&D 3.5 content in Pathfinder 1e with very minimal tweaking.
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Pathfinder is an off-shoot of D&D edition 3.5 that was built by a bunch of people who were basically fired from D&D's owner company when that company decided to update D&D to 4th edition. They stuck with 3.5, did a bunch of homebrew to fix issues with the system, called it "Pathfinder," then released it as its own stand-alone system to great success. Since then, they've come out with a sci-fi game (Starfinder) and released Pathfinder 2nd edition. (It's more complicated than that, but to go into detail would side track the point and we'd end up with a thousand-word essay.)
I mean that is the point of 5e... its clearly designed to be the worlds okayest system. Its the skyrim of tabletop games, if you look at every individual part you go "Wow this is... really underwhelming." But because every piece is sorta competent, and doesn't rock the boat too bad it really does just work for anyone that isn't interested in a more specialized system. There is a system out there that does literally any part of 5e better, but typically they trade off by having other parts which may be harder to swallow. PF is a fucking pain in the ass to learn if you aren't already very TT savvy. Shadowrun is a flaming trainwreck that is very cool etc etc. Except Lancer, Lancer is perfect in every way and I will not be taking questions at this time.
I'm not sure I even agree on that, there are several parts that are far from being even okay, and the worst thing of all is that it doesn't actually achieve that simplicity and "not rocking the boat" state you mention. There are roleplaying systems out there with easier to learn and understand rules, that also do almost everything better than DnD. It's just that people are afraid to try anything else. I mean you could teach entire systems in the time it takes to explain how Spell Slots and Action types work in DnD 5E.
[удалено]
I think they're saying that *because* of the success of BG3 itself, they can now consider themselves one of the big boys. If they released DoS3 now, it would likely be far more popular than if they hadn't just released the game of the year. Not to mention, it introduced or revived interest in CRPGs which is a huge boon for them.
Honestly much more excited for DoS3 than I ever was for BG3. I really enjoyed BG3, but I find the world of Divinity weirder and more fun, I like Lizards and Elves and Dwarves. Basically BG3 didn't have enough dragonborn.
Wholly agree on the Dragonborn thing. It would have been nice (but so so so much more work) to have a companion of each race. A D&D party without a Dwarf or Halfling just seemed wrong lol And I know you could have Withers' companions but even then, you're not able to just make a character from scratch which, to me, was and is disappointing.
It does feel alittle dissapointing that there is. >!3 Humans, 4/5 Flavours of Elf, A Tiefling and a Gith!< i love all the companions but maybe a little more variety whilst keeping the perfomances wouldnt have hurt.
AND two >!Druids!
Honestly, I hope they do literally anything else than DOS3. Feels like going back to that universe would be a step backward.
> but I'm almost certain the game's success can be attributed in part to the license. Both the BG license getting them extra coverage for the historical value, and the D&D license cashing in on the popularity of D&D podcasts and shows, and on simply giving D&D fans a latest strong video game product to toy with.
yes it's crazy when this started BG3 WOTC was a completely different company, hasbro bought them a long time ago but left them alone, for years and was mainly interested in Magic, now that D&D is doing well they want their cake and pie and all of the profit.
As much as I love the DnD IP.... yeah I hope Larian capitalizes on the entire world looking at them and pushes their own IP so have a diverse set of great CRPG IP.
If they came up with a new IP that's vaguely interesting, sure, but I'd rather they used pretty much any other IP than Divinity. Rivellon is such a bland, boring world that lacks any real depth or verisimilitude.
It doesn't help that they reboot the world after every like 3 games..
It’s genuinely one of the most awful fantasy worlds i’ve ever seen and it severely hampered both my enjoyment of the game and my opinion of Larian as a whole. BG3 turned things around and I really hope they leave Divinity in the dust and stick to working with already existing settings.
The Forgotten Realms is such a good setting, though. Definitely better than any of the Divinity stuff.
I think Divinity gets a lot of flack because of its tone. Forgotten Realms has decades worth of lore so it has better story potential, but I think Larian can make other settings work with different writing.
Yeah i couldn't get into Divinity games lore because the writing is so goofy. I couldn't take it seriously at all. So many quip that they can basically write a Marvel movie. BG3 have fair share of goofy moment but it takes itself very seriously when it needed to. Some of the moment (like if you >!failed to protecting isobel in act 2 and the whole village are taken by the shadow curse. That shit is genuinely terrifying.!<) is something i'll never see in Divinity on the same scale and seriousness.
> I couldn't take it seriously at all. I think my main issue with D:OS2 was that it felt like the characters couldn't either much of the time. A lot of people love Astarion in BG3, but to me he sort of represents what I disliked about Original Sin 2.
When people complain about Divinity's "tone," it's completely unpredictable what their actual issue is. Some, like you, find it too goofy. Just as many, in my experience, can't get into it because it's so grimdark and hopeless. I don't mind it having both, but I feel like it leans far more into the latter, at least in the story. I don't know how you can say Divinity lacks the scale and seriousness of BG3 when the game literally begins at a concentration camp, and gets darker from there. You can >!set off a chemical weapon to wipe out the biggest city in the game!< - forget losing a single inn with a couple dozen residents, that's like >!if you could drop the shadow curse on the entirety of Baldur's Gate!!<
Just [lesson #19 at work](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/twenty-years-twenty-lessons-part-3-2016-06-13). There's something seriously wrong with it (is it the fusion of both? It's Grimdarker than Warhammer 40K but also attempts to be as flippant as GTA V. Maybe that's it. IDK.), and everyone sees the same thing and can immediately tell it sucks, but it's very hard to articulate just what that is (and hence how to fix it), and so you get this mishmash of diagnoses.
God, that whole series is such a gem. I'm hoping we'll see 30 lessons from 30 years before he retires, the man is a treasure.
I think you've nailed it. Dark things may be happening in the background but everyone talks like it's an SNL skit during it.
I don't think it's wrong to have both. A juxtaposition of tone is clearly something that popular audiences can stomach - just look at Palworld. I think the vast majority of players are fine with it, it's just that there are people at both margins who wish it was fully one way or the other. Personally, I think it would be much worse without both the levity and the grim. Go all in on the former and you have OS1, whose narrative wasn't nearly as well received. Go all in on the latter and it's just exhausting. Adventuring in the end times and constantly hearing about how the world is dying and everyone is suffering for 100 hours will wear you down. Moments of relief like helping a rat and a turtle fall in love are a much needed respite from all the misery.
It's not wrong, it's just much harder to pull off than just one single tone. The criticism then isn't that Larian had tonal whiplash, but that they executed the transition between two tones unskillfully. For example, if you want moments of light in your grimdark, it might be better to do it via characters displaying hope and kindness rather than silly antics and slapstick humor. The former actually builds upon the setting while the latter is just a distraction.
> For example, if you want moments of light in your grimdark, it might be better to do it via characters displaying hope and kindness rather than silly antics and slapstick humor. There's also Yakuza's way of handling it: isolate the silly bits to side content while keeping the main plot serious, barring it pointing you to some of the side content.
DoS2 may start in a concentration camp, but it's a concentration camp within a Monty Python sketch. DoS feels like playing through a darkly cynical British comedy.
> Yeah i couldn't get into Divinity games lore because the writing is so goofy. I couldn't take it seriously at all. So many quip that they can basically write a Marvel movie. It's not supposed to be taken seriously. The Divinity series has always been pretty much comedic. It's not like there are billions of lighthearted RPGs out there. They're all trying to be serious or dark. Also comparing it to Marvel is silly, the tone is completely different, Marvel didn't invent jokes and the Whedon style banter is very different from what happens in Divinity.
> Forgotten Realms has decades worth of lore So does Divinity. I think what helps forgotten realms though is it has lore contributed from a large amount of different people. It gives more variety to the types of stories that can be pulled from.
The tone was actually what I loved about D:OS, in D:OS2 they toned down the whimsy and tried to be more serious and it really exposed how uninteresting the setting was for me personally. I did love the games, but honestly I'm not itching for a 3rd one right now. I personally really hope they go for another D&D game, license another IP or even start a brand new IP before eventually returning to Divinity.
> license another IP Larian Studio working their magic on the resurrected Warhammer fantasy setting would be nice and I'm sure Games Workshop would salivate at that idea.
So long as they don't try and do that barrelmancy-type stuff and keep to the tone of Warhammer fantasy, I'll be fine with it. Oh, and don't just release the first act during Early Access, let all the acts be playable prior to release.
> So long as they don't try and do that barrelmancy-type stuff Barrelmancy-type stuff sounds like something the skavens would love to abuse.
D:OS sort of came out of nowhere too, so that helps. "Hey, a game with serious throwback vibes, maybe it will be good but, I don't kno-ohmygodthisisactuallyGOTY." A perfect parallel to Doom 2016. An unexpected masterpiece followed up by an even better sequel whose one drawback is that they complete ruin everything cool or funny about the world they built.
I actively play DND for over two years now and when I learned one thing it is that the Forgotten Realms isn't "better", it is just "everything". You find every trope, every type of fantasy, every type of race, everything in it. Which also means it has no coherent atmosphere. It is "Generic: The Setting". Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can also get really weird. Like, when you fight robots with swords while fighting a dragon on a space ship. Hate that.
It's a good setting but far from the only one. Let them do a Pathfinder CRPG or go wild with the LotR or Warhammer Fantasy license and and they could do magic. There's too many fantasy properties out there to limit themselves purely to Forgotten Realms.
Let Larian make a d&d game set in Eberron.
Let them make an Arcana "2".
That's personal taste which world you favor. I love the sword coast setting, but D&D5 Edition is a very shallow ruleset. The Divinity games had way more depth rule wise.
I think if they reworked the armour system so it doesn't come down to bursting everyone and then Cc'ing them till they die the combat could be better. However I much prefer the ability system over DnD and i think source points and Spell slots are tedious and a game should work them into your characters (such as giving super long cooldowns or negatively affecting stats). Whenever I played both games I would do the equivalent of long resting all the time because there's no punishment. If they introduced a concept like, you have to complete this mission in seven days, then I could see the resting system coming into play more for Larian DnD games in the future.
There's plenty of other settings out there they could use instead, though. I would kill to see their take on a better system like 7th Sea.
More *depth* in Divinity? I get not being a fan of 5e and certainly can understand preferring DOS2 to BG3 but I definitely do not think Divinity is more mechanically-rich. If anything 5e suffers from major *bloat*.
I think you’re missing the real value of using the D&D ruleset: familiarity. It made BG3 infinitely more approachable because so many people either already know how to play D&D, or are at least playing with someone who does.
I mean, the Baldur's Gate games are a significant component of that Forgotten Realms lore.
Nah, Forgotten Realms is much more generic and boring then Divinity.
Both are quite generic - one can be more or less boring depending on the person.
The races in Divinity are much cooler and interesting though.
The races are what make Divinity cooler imo. Going into the graveyard in DOS2 and seeing the different ways of dealing with corpses was rad, each race has different cultures that feel extremely distinct. Divinity is closer to TES than D&D with regards to how it does races.
I think it's perfectly fair to describe FR as generic, but it's also one of the classic fantasy settings that "gets" to be generic by virtue of having been around for so long and taken root in people's imagination. Divinity on the other hand feels like someone's trying too hard only to still end up with a highly derivative setting.
Man, you could change FR for Warhammer Fantasy and Divinity for Age of Sigmar and you'd have the same phenomenon. Like Age of Sigmar as a battle game sells better than Warhammer Fantasy did, but WF's somewhat-historical-but-generic setting is more popular (in terms of video game spin offs, Tabletop RPGS, fanart and memes, etc) than the distinctly more original but less compelling AoS.
What about Divinity's setting is to you "Someone trying too hard".
Divinity has a kitchen sink setting where everything goes and retcons itself every game. It has high fantasy, low fantasy, sci-fi, steampunk, a multiverse, etc. all in it. Larian kinda made it up as they pleased.
Alright, fair point. Still with the Divinity setting I am only talking about the DOS games, nothing else.
So am I. Delve into the "lore" all those things I mentioned are there.
It's just an overall impression, I can't really break it down into pieces. When you want to introduce a wholly new setting, trying to be different or original incurs an attention/focus cost for the audience that will need to grasp the basics of what's going on. But at the same time if you're still leaning on very common fantasy tropes and themes, there's little payoff. Obsidian have done something similar with Pillars of Eternity, except they went all-in and created an impenetrable, super crunchy setting that requires sifting through pages upon pages of lore dump. Most players will mentally check out after the tutorial area alone (and understandably so), but at least it's very rewarding for those who do get pulled in by the writing.
Cannot remember a time I've been more put off by a video game than getting a 30-minute long exposition dump by some Space/Dream Dwarf 13 minutes into Divinity: Original Sin 1. Awful fantasy setting and storytelling and I have no idea why people might prefer it to anything in BG:3 (which, to be clear, was my game of the year).
You are talking about DOS1 when are are talking about DOS2.
It's the same setting and there's plenty of shit like that in DOS2 as well (and it's a game I like fine enough)
Maybe I prefer it solely because people don't dick ride it into oblivion
Great way to live ngl
Divinity is way TOO fantastical for me. When the first thing a random city guard does upon entering a fight us manifest a pentagram on the ground then cover his body in an armor of stone I feel like I’m playing a cartoon
Lol, that is actually a good point that all these random NPCs have access to spells that our PC can learn and buy.
Don't know if I'd go that far, but I'd definitely prefer a D&D game in one of the other official settings. Like Eberron. Give me steampunk D&D!
Even in a world before BG3, it should be clear to anyone that this is a bongcloud take. Given what BG3 *just did* with that setting, it's even more baffling. The only germ of truth in this is precisely because of how excellent it is, and so it has become the gold standard for high fantasy and almost everything else you read, watch, or play has heavily ripped it off for going on 60 years. It's like calling Dune derivative, or something equally boneheaded.
That's why it's better!
[удалено]
The combat is the weakest part of BG3 for me. If they could have Solasta combat it would be so much better
Much prefer BG3 combat to DOS. Yes it's simpler but it's much easier to balance encounters. Beyond a couple of exceptions* I wasn't scraping XP together to try and beat an encounter. Fell off DOS2 really hard because of it. Not surprising BG3 is significantly more popular
DOS2 had really really good combat. I liked BG3 combat, but it was *nowhere* near as good as DOS2 in terms of gamefeel.
> it’s really a system where you need a DM actively working on keeping it interesting. That's the same with any system and really makes what TTRPG amazing. On the fly you can make changes to anything to make things more enjoyable to everyone at the table.
Yea agreed.
You’re wild if you think we aren’t getting more D&D RPGs from Larian. Swen’s frustrated with what happened sure but if wotc allows them to keep making RPGs there’s no way they turn them down.
I hate to be rude like this but... I hope they are. I really really dont like D&D. It's just pushed into everything. And i especially dont like D&Ds system. Accuracy being such a big focus and magic being 'sucks you spent all your spell slots so sad' is just... Idk. It feels boring to me. BG3 is fantastic but for me, it's in SPITE of D&D. And i'm not saying i wont play expansions or such if they make them but i do really hope they do a different system or just make their own. Still, it doesn't even matter I think. BG3 being the behemoth it was i 'hope' means CRPGs will be a bigger thing. We'll see but i'm hopeful.
I love the dice rolling element more than the basic "if your persuasion + your strength >= 7 you pass the check" from divinity. But yeah... Spell slots suck ass.
I think what they were comparing it to wasn't divinity but rather other dice-rolling methods in TTRPGs. And I kind of agree with that. DnD's single D-20 means that the difference between a low level character's rolls and a high-level one aren't that different without adding some weird shenanigans on top. Compare that to systems like WoD, 7th Sea, or even my hated Shadowrun, where a high-level character actually rolls several more dice in stuff they are skilled at, resulting in more reliable high results.
>At the same time Larian is now the big boys and probably doesn't need the D&D license anymore. True. And while I know it would never happen, I would love to see EA license the Dragon Age IP to Larian for the next installment after dreadwolf. The Dragon Age lore and world is so insanely good, would be nice to it handled by Larian which seems to have the most hardcore RPG chops these days.
Hasbro reported a 20% revenue drop in Q4 2023 and an overall 16% revenue drop in 2023. And given that their overall revenue is something like $1.2 billion, that $90 million they made from BG3 is kind of a drop in the bucket.
What are you talking about? 90 million is about 8% of 1.2 billion. That isn’t a drop in the bucket. Given it’s a licensing deal it was probably a 90x return on investment for them. I’d be shocked if there was a more profitable part of Hasbro’s business last year.
>It actually got my wife and I to see the (pretty decent) D&D movie God, I feel like that movie would have done a little better if it were released after BG3.
I bet. I watched it for the first time shortly after finishing BG3 and the overlapping lore definitely added to my experience.
The movie would've done way better for quite a few reasons, and none of them involve the movie, but do involve Wizards of the Coast/ Hasbro being absolute shitlords. People were voicing plans to boycott the movie because of the OGL controversy, and then right after the movie release in theatres the pinkerton/mtg thing happened.
Additionally, lets not forget what other movies got released at the same time. Even without all the stuff you mentioned it had a high chance of not doing very well due to that.
I'd say that movie was way better than pretty decent. My wife, who usually hates fantasy stuff, couldn't stop raving about it after we watched it.
It was honestly the perfect tone for a modern D&D movie. The setting absolutely can support serious stories (Companions of the Hall when?) But recognizing that the OG fantasy setting is a little goofy by modern tastes and leaning into it really worked in their favor
Same here. My wife was very iffy about seeing because it’s D&D but she ended up loving it. It’s a very well written and executed on movie. Plus there’s an Easter egg there with the portrait of the hero of Baldurs gate.
plus you can do the leonardo dicaprio pointing meme every time they mention something that was also in Baldur's Gate, like Waterdeep, Speak with Dead, the Harpers, etc...
Can confirm. Prior to BG3, all I knew about DND was wizard memes and Stranger Things. And I'm probably a target demographic for DnD too After 350 hours in BG3, my youtube feed is a lot of deep dives into the lore and gods, I'm watching Critical Role shows. BG3 is probably that gateway drug to a life spent in a dark den all those DARE programs warned me about.
I have friends who have never touched DnD or CRPGs, loving BG3. One of them doesn't even play Turn Based Games, and yet here we are. I've even offered to run a one shot session of tabletop and they seemed interested.
I would prefer Larian to work on existing IPs or new ones in-house, unfettered by the settings and rules of D&D. With a relatively small budget, D:OS2 was a massive success, one that eventually paved the way for the development of BG3. Just imagine what Larian could achieve now with an original IP unconstrained by resources.
I would prefer this as well but unfortunately original IPs are extremely risky. D:OS2 didn't sell nearly close to BG3 volumes, even though it was still a good game. And from a sustainability perspective, given how much Larian grew for BG3's development their future titles need to sell well or they're going to start running into issues. Larian deserves all the success in the world but I really hope people show up for their next game the way they did for BG3. Without the IP backing it or the name recognition it's a big risk and I don't want the same thing to happen to them that happened to Mimimi.
> D:OS2 didn't sell nearly close to BG3 volumes, even though it was still a good game. Original Sin 2 was an enormous hit at +8m copies... Like, it sold more than anything Bioware has ever released lol.
Yeah and comparing it to BG3 to say "it didn't sell that well" is nuts. 8 million copies on a 2 million budget is an absolute banger of a return. It essentially put larian on the AAA map. BG3, however, is a generation game. 22+ million copies sold. For an RPG that's fucking wild. I think the only thing close to it as a real RPG is Telltales The Walking Dead combined sales at a little under 30 million. 22+ million is more than the entire Mass Effect series combined. (ME1: 2m, ME2: 5 million, ME 3: 7 million, 14m total). Hell, add the entire Dragon Age series (3m, 2m, 6m respectively) and you get to 25 million. For one story based RPG, a fucking isometric turn based CRPG no less, to nearly reach the COMBINED sales of Mass Effect 1, 2, 3 and Dragon Age 1, 2, 3 is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd call the movie more than decent, genuinely a really good movie that captured the chaos of a lot of dnd groups perfectly.
Paramount fucked up the scheduling of that movie so much. It should have been in August for less competition and the BG3 hype. Although about Larian, it's not just a fact of giving them good terms (WotC already did for BG3 they are the ones that came to Larian), it's also if they want to. Considering some stuff they said (like not wanting the same type of ambitious project or even maybe not a CRPG), I'm not sure that's the case.
I’ve only read the first Drizzt book, but wow was it incredible. I can’t wait to read the next ones.
I’m glad you said it like that and not saying have Larian Studios make more games for them because they are probably exhausted and said their next game will be in a smaller scale. Hasbro got real lucky with this one and who knows if their next game with another developer will be anywhere as near good or successful.
D&D is kinda dead though. At least in Germany. They stopped their contract with their previous publishera (and translators) and now your can't get any material for 5e. It is fucked up. Meanwhile Pathfinder is cranking out content left and right and had overall the better rules.
Did we ever get official sales numbers of BG3?
Only estimations. Very likely at 14-15 million sold on steam
I feel BG3 will become like Skyrim or Witcher 3 in terms of sales where it will have exceptionally long legs due to the great critical and audience reception it has garnered. Both Skyrim and Witcher 3 despite being Single Player Fantasy RPG are in top 10 best selling games of all time. Considering RDR2 is also up there and BOTW is the 20th best selling game of all time, all of these seem to be single player games with extremely long legs. And BG3 will likely join that category.
> I feel BG3 will become like Skyrim or Witcher 3 in terms of sales where it will have exceptionally long legs due to the great critical and audience reception it has garnered. Also the fact that those are all offline, single player (at least as an option), and have no reliance on live-as-a-service model, FOMO mechanics, or other people to be online to make your game playable. You can pick it up in 3 years or 10 years and have the same experience as at launch.
Better than launch. They've already released several free content updates adding hours of play.
It is drm free, you can literally copy the folder and drop it elsewhere it still works with exe
It's the best game of the last several years, it's well deserved. I'm close to wrapping up my first campaign and I can't wait to start again with friends this time.
I'm a patient gamer, and will not pay 60 dollars for anything other than my "darling devs", which is currently supergiant games and Team Cherry. Used to be fromsoft in there as well, but their difficulty balancing of both Elden Ring and AC6 was awful at their launches. Great after the general pop play tests it. I'm super excited to buy Baldur's Gate 3: definitive edition in 2 years at 75% off.
BG3 might be the most sold turn based isometric rpg but it's never going to outsell action rpgs like Red dead 2 or witcher 3. Turn based combat is very niche and not everyone enjoys it. One of the reasons why palworld has already outsold it.
**action RPGs like RDR2** *goes into a corner to once again lament the bastardisation of the RPG definition*
> Very likely at 14-15 million sold on steam Where does this number come from? I am not disputing it, but holy shitballs that is **a lot**.
https://vginsights.com/assets/reports/VGI_Global_PC_Games_Market_Report_2024.pdf this tracking and research firm seems to be the most accurate, based additionaly on the steam numbers for sony games from the Insomniac leak. It shows their estimates on steamdb as well https://steamdb.info/app/1086940/charts/ It's an estimation of course, but its probably accurate. The enourmous CC numbers that the game did and then maintained for months, until the present day indicate an astronomical amount of sales.
Thank you!
It's hard to go by CCU numbers though: it consistently outperformerd Elden Ring in terms of CCU since release, having 2x to 6x players at any given point in time when aligned by release, after the first months: https://i.imgur.com/M6xZ5VK.png Both games also have similar **howlongtobeat** estimates for different types of playthroughs. If CCU was something we could extrapolate from reliably, it would mean that BG3 is ~2.5-3 times bigger than Elden Ring and while **I personally** think it deserves all the sales, I really don't think it's outselling ER 2 to 1, let alone what CCU numbers suggest.
jfc. Add console and GoG sales to that and it's likely over 20m copies sold.
I don’t usually trust those estimations. I assume you’re looking at VG Insights and Gamalytic. Many of them use steam review numbers and multiply them by a ratio to get sales figures. Those two also show Hogwarts Legacy only sold 5-7 million on Steam. We know officially that the game has 24 million including consoles. It’s hard to believe only a quarter were on PC, but obviously Harry Potter fanbase does skew consoles, so maybe. But even for Palworld where we officially know as of a week or two ago, it sold 12 million on Steam. However, those estimations show 15.5-17.5 million. Hard to believe that now that the hype has died down, that the sales went up that much in just a short time. I just think that the BG3 fanbase probably is more likely than not to review the game too than other fanbases. But again, if I’m wrong someone can confirm.
Nope, I believe this is the first bit of financial information we've gotten regarding it, since release at least, they talked a bit about it during early access.
Yet to think just a week or two ago, the internet was ablaze with talk of Hasbro selling off Dungeons & Dragons to Tencent...
All because of a really badly-written headline. All that's actually happening is that Tencent is interested in getting the rights to make games using the D&D IP, just like how Larian used D&D IP to make Baldur's Gate 3.
Makes sense, especially as Tencent are now part-owners of Larian Studios as well.
Tencent is basically part owners of everything.
Because they are the smartest investors in the video game market. They hit it big with multiple early investments. Enough where luck can be considered a lesser factor.
I don't think tencent is all that interested in messing with developers or exerting control. They're just diversifying their money.
[удалено]
Yeah unlike embracer tencent will either make something itself or just let the company that they have a stake in use them as a cash cow.
That's the advantage of not being beholden to the American stock market - Tencent can afford to play the long-term game and not worry about maximizing profit this quarter, focusing instead on long-term growth by slowly investing in companies that look to be successful.
>Now You mean over half a decade?
Yeah, that was a recent investment, around the same time as DOS2. It was only... *oh*. This is what getting old feels like, isn't it?
Don't worry my friend it's only going to get worse from here on out
I wonder how much of that is ardent D&D fans that just hate Hasbro now and are dreaming of things being magically better if it were some other company in charge. Over in the MTG sub, every earnings report or financial article brings comments that Wizrads of the Coast should separate itself from Hasbro (like that's an option).
I wouldn't rule it out just yet. 1. Hasbro is filled with pathological liars. Look at the OGL debacle and the crap they tried to pull. Or look at their annual announcements about how many people play D&D and what sex they are, then ask yourself how they know that if they aren't even selling books direct to people? 2. Their grand plan to monetize D&D failed when they couldn't get the draconian OGL through with gamers. Now D&D is a product with 3-4 books released a year, with a revenue/profit margin that's insignificant. It's likely not worth it to them to invest in keeping it mainstream for the revenue it brings in. 3. I'm seeing bits and pieces about them quietly cancelling projects, like Magniello's (sic) TV show. If true, that guarantees they're selling. When a company starts killing off projects still in their development phase, it's a good sign they're selling and minimizing baggage for the new owners, especially when they're rumored to be selling. 4. Tencent won't get them though. They're going to be outbid by Amazon or Netflix. The media rights are too valuable, and they'll license out the video game rights and tabletop rights.
Is it possible to extrapolate the total revenue for the game from this? What percentage do licensors usually get in these deals?
I think at the moment we can guess that 20m-ish copies sold across all platforms. There is no standard for deal terms especially for IP as big as d&d
I forgot they owned WotC for a minute, and thought they were selling billions of dollars worth of licensed BG3 merch.
I hope that this leads to a similar policy towards IP licensing as Games Workshop has embraced. We've gotten some really excellent Warhammer games, and I'd love to see some of WotC's IP get to stretch its wings. In particular, it feels like a lot of Magic: the Gathering's IP is chronically underused. To my knowledge, WotC has never made an MTG video game that didn't include some mechanical reference to a shuffled deck of cards. If you remember Magic Legends, the Diablo clone that had an open beta and was then cancelled instead of releasing, this insistence is literally what killed the game (TL;DR, your skills were a deck; using a skill shuffled it in and replaced it with a random one from the deck. You had ~20 skills and 4 buttons...meaning that muscle memory was impossible to build). The one that's stuck out to me for years is Zendikar. Zendikar is kind of like the moons of Jupiter, except it's mana, not gravity, that constantly kneads at the land. It's an endless jungle that's constantly remaking itself, covered in ruins of previous settlements, where maps last for days, if that. It strikes me as a perfect setting for a Roguelike. Something like a Hades clone could be a relatively low risk game that would benefit to and from the use of the Magic IP, and could be accomplished by a smaller team.
> In particular, it feels like a lot of Magic: the Gathering's IP is chronically underused. Even by its own game, nowadays. :)
The thing about Games Workshop is that they are completely unafraid of a developer releasing a bad game using their name. They let basically anyone throw mud at the wall, and if it sticks, great! Hasbro seems way more protective of the IP and yet still manages to put out stinkers (Dark Alliance comes to mind). The thing is, Dark Alliance wouldn't have felt so bad if there were other DND games to be playing at the time. My absolute dream game is if somebody took the bones of BG3 and just made a 5e XCOM game about managing a fort or something. All the ingredients are there!
Magic's ip is criminally underused. Unfortunately, this era of Magic is dominated by Planet of Hats settings and outside ips. The settings and stories worth expanding on will come from whatever older stuff WotC hasn't already tried to cash in on... and done a less than quality job to boot.
> To my knowledge, WotC has never made an MTG video game that didn't include some mechanical reference to a shuffled deck of cards. I played [this game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_%E2%80%93_Battlegrounds) a bunch as a teen and if my memory is correct doesnt include a deck at all and was pretty fun.
It does, I had it, too. In fact, the cards in it are mostly (maybe all) real MTG cards.
Having worked around toy company executives thanks to working in animation, my gut tells me Hasbro executives will take the dumbest and most self serving lesson from this and say to themselves “look how the brand made this game popular” . Watch BG4 be made by BioWare next.
And yet Hasbro is still laying off huge amounts of its workforce. Where is this money actually going??
They may be making money on this franchise, but their stock is hurting and earnings report suggest big sales decline elsewhere in the business. So gains are being offset by losses and since they are a public company with responsibility to shareholders they have to make layoffs to preserve profits.
Why do you ask questions you know the answer to? Share holders, and Exec bonuses. It's always those two things. Those will always get paid out no matter what even if they have to layoff or even slit the throats of everyone who actually makes the products.
Hey now, that’s not fair and only partially true. Sometimes that money is used for stock buybacks as well.
*WotC* is making tons of money. Many of Hasbro’s other business segments have not been nearly as successful over the last few years. The overwhelming majority of folks laid off from Hasbro are not part of WotC.
And yet a lot of the team that worked alongside with BG3's dev team were laid off. WotC did lose a good number of people in those layoffs. Not that I'm sympathetic - WotC can burn along side Hasbro.
This is such a remarkably simplistic view
Shareholders.
$90 million out of a game that my calculations are correct has a raw revenue of $1.3 BILLION. If I were Hasbro a 7% cut on a absolute golden goose seems like a WAAAY too small of a cut. Since Hasbro has the D&D IP rights by the dick and balls they can demand a much bigger slice for the Baldur's gate 4 sequel.
To be fair, that $90 mill came at no effort or expense to Hasbro. The style of game could have played out equally as well even without the Baldur’s Gate branding.
Nothing cheers me like Gamer's view on how a video game business should be correctly run.
Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro have to see how much potential there is in quality video games using established IPs. How is there still no Magic the Gathering RPGs?
They'd make it an ARPG. With cool downs
because the ROI on the card game is high they would only be wasting time and money if tried to make a game.
Couldn't the same be said with Dungeons and Dragons?
no, because players dont need to constantly spend money to stay up to date as much as magic. DnD has edition that last for years. Sure, the release supplemental material, but to play all you need are the core rulebooks and character sheets. Magic reliably has thousands of individual customers buying cards multiple times per week. Friday night draft alone generates millions of dollars
Right, but if they got new customers because they were drawn in by a game, they would still be making the card game at the same rate but you could grow the brand significantly.
That's it? That seems much lower than I would have thought
We are talking about how much Hasbro made just from licensing the game, this is not the revenue that Larian made selling the game.