Yeah a good interview. The two critical pieces of new info for me were:
The game interface/UI is being built to accommodate mods that expand party size to six. Assuming such a mod will be forthcoming, I would never even consider playing the game without such a mod.
The five companions revealed so far are deliberately in the neutral to evil side to encourage feedback of evil playthroughs during EA, and the companions that will be revealed later will be more on the good side. Very good news.
Because it's not the same product. You're paying for one chapter of the game, and to test the game for them, and the promise that they might deliver the rest some time later. It is not the same product. You're taking the risk here, so the price you pay should be discounted. Don't buy the pig in the sack, they say. I say don't buy the head of the pig for the full prjce and hope they're telling the truth when they say the rest will be delivered a year later.
I'm sorry but there's no long-shot promise here. Once again, imo, people are inventing odd pre-texts to criticize Larian based on taking one small fact and then either speculating deeply on that or inventing things that aren't true.
Larian isn't some new game company that cannot be trusted to ship a completed project.
The game already is mostly complete, per their own interviews. Early Access is a way to test balance, bug and and other gameplay issues. It's not as if they've only made EA content.
Because it's not the same product. You're paying for one chapter of the game, and to test the game for them, and the promise that they might deliver the rest some time later. It is not the same product. You're taking the risk here, so the price you pay should be discounted. Don't buy the pig in the sack, they say. I say don't buy the head of the pig for the full prjce and hope they're telling the truth when they say the rest will be delivered a year later.
I'm sorry but there's no long-shot promise here. Once again, imo, people are inventing odd pre-texts to criticize Larian based on taking one small fact and then either speculating deeply on that or inventing things that aren't true.
Larian isn't some new game company that cannot be trusted to ship a completed project.
The game already is mostly complete, per their own interviews. Early Access is a way to test balance, bug and and other gameplay issues. It's not as if they've only made EA content.
Right. Not only that, but it is a completely optional buy in. Dont like it? Dont do it. It's the same as preordering.
By buying in EA, you are offering to help playtest a game - but in return you are offered the chance to play a game earlier than you otherwise would. It doesnt cost more than the game itself to do that, so it's up to each individual to weigh that as a positive or negative.
I personally have zero interest in EA, despite being fairly excited about the game. I dont want it, so I'm not getting it. More power to those who do.
Don't buy it then, you are not obliged to do that. Wait for the full release. But I don't understand why concerns (in this case, it's safe because it's Larian and their previous games are there for you to see) can decrease the price of the game when it will be the same game for everyone once it's released: those who bought it during EA or afterwards.
If something that is a standard in the field is not right, who and how should judge what is right, under what criteria it is right?
I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I think is right myself without a bunch of corporations dictating it to me.
The flaws of the "it's standard in the business so it's the right thing to do" should be obvious to anyone without even bringing up parallels to other businesses. Businesses don't care about what is right, they care about making money. We are the ones who care about what is right because we don't want to be treated unfairly.
I mean, it's business standard to not finish the Early Access games people has paid them to make. Only 25% are actually released. Is that right to you too?
But I don't understand why concerns (in this case, it's safe because it's Larian and their previous games are there for you to see) can decrease the price of the game when it will be the same game for everyone once it's released: those who bought it during EA or afterwards.
Because now isn't then, and what you're getting now isn't what they promise that they'll eventually release. What you get is a part of the game and said promise. Therefore you also should pay less than the full price.
And no, it isn't "safe". The only thing that would make it "safe" would be a money back guarantee if the game isn't finished. Other finished games doesn't mean this one will be. EA is never "safe" because you are spending money without a guarantee that you will receive the game you paid them for. The only guarantee of what you'll get is for the content you receive when you pay -- and since it isn't the full game you shouldn't be paying full price.
This is customer sense 101. People need to stop letting themselves be taken advantage of by robber barons in the games businesses.
Hey, I don't think it's about "corporations" in this particular case. Larian has come here as an indie studio. Imagine it was Beamdog who did an Early Access program for BG3. Would you be using the term corporations then? Any answer to that would depend on your trust to Beamdog.
It's exactly the same situation with Larian and the Early Access period. It's a question of trust. I have full trust in them because I played their previous games and I like them a lot. It's a no-brainer for me that they are real and hard-working.
? That's not a matter of trust no matter how you look at it. But of legal business categorization. For all we know both Larian and Beamdog are privately held companies. Other terms include close corporations, or closely held corporations. That holds true for pretty much most indie studios, save a handful of deviations. However whenever Larian can be even defined as “indie“ is, was and still will be up for debate.
Appealing to emotions is all well and fine. But it does little in warranting prices, marketing campaigns, or anything else business related really.
Buying or not buying a product in EA is emotions. It's your decision. You make that decision based on your knowledge and principles. @scriver used the term corporation in a bad sense: "robber barons", "businesses don't care about what is right, they care about making money."
It's ok if you think that way. But it doesn't explain why an EA title should be cheaper than the full game. Beamdog, Larian, Obsidian, Owlcat, InXile, - all these companies care about players and their products. They work on their games for years, including after release.
Early Access, or Kickstarter, or any other venue where it's possible to get a big closed beta, is the only way for these companies to provide something players want.
Hey, I don't think it's about "corporations" in this particular case. Larian has come here as an indie studio. Imagine it was Beamdog who did an Early Access program for BG3. Would you be using the term corporations then? Any answer to that would depend on your trust to Beamdog.
Buying or not buying a product in EA is emotions. It's your decision. You make that decision based on your knowledge and principles. @scriver used the term corporation in a bad sense: "robber barons", "businesses don't care about what is right, they care about making money."
It's ok if you think that way. But it doesn't explain why an EA title should be cheaper than the full game.
You'll find the explanation to that if you look at the rest of the post too.
Don't buy it then, you are not obliged to do that. Wait for the full release. But I don't understand why concerns (in this case, it's safe because it's Larian and their previous games are there for you to see) can decrease the price of the game when it will be the same game for everyone once it's released: those who bought it during EA or afterwards.
If something that is a standard in the field is not right, who and how should judge what is right, under what criteria it is right?
I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I think is right myself without a bunch of corporations dictating it to me.
The flaws of the "it's standard in the business so it's the right thing to do" should be obvious to anyone without even bringing up parallels to other businesses. Businesses don't care about what is right, they care about making money. We are the ones who care about what is right because we don't want to be treated unfairly.
I mean, it's business standard to not finish the Early Access games people has paid them to make. Only 25% are actually released. Is that right to you too?
But I don't understand why concerns (in this case, it's safe because it's Larian and their previous games are there for you to see) can decrease the price of the game when it will be the same game for everyone once it's released: those who bought it during EA or afterwards.
Because now isn't then, and what you're getting now isn't what they promise that they'll eventually release. What you get is a part of the game and said promise. Therefore you also should pay less than the full price.
And no, it isn't "safe". The only thing that would make it "safe" would be a money back guarantee if the game isn't finished. Other finished games doesn't mean this one will be. EA is never "safe" because you are spending money without a guarantee that you will receive the game you paid them for. The only guarantee of what you'll get is for the content you receive when you pay -- and since it isn't the full game you shouldn't be paying full price.
This is customer sense 101. People need to stop letting themselves be taken advantage of by robber barons in the games businesses.
Let's assume EA is half of the price of full release. Then what? You would pay another half after release? If not it would be as if you purchase it at 50% discount.
Let's assume EA is half of the price of full release. *snip*
If not it would be as if you purchase it at 50% discount.
Precisely! By purchasing any Early Access title, one automatically receives the end product as well. No matter the price difference between those two stages. That is... if the game ever gets out of its EA phase, or otherwise doesn't run into troubles of course. The better a deal customers get, the less likely they are scared away by the EA offer. And 60 bucks does scare a fair amount of potential EA customers away.
The reduced price in such a situation acts as an incentive for buyers, as well as a 'thank you' for said willing testers. And in turn the studio earns for utilizing such a long term price tactic a much larger amount of testers, along with a bigger pool of feedback and their community's goodwill that way. It is actually quite a popular way for smaller indie teams to survive on steam. Even if a 50% off is financially impossible for them. More commonly used are 15%~30% deals during the EA.
It is actually quite a popular way for smaller indie teams to survive on steam. Even if a 50% off is financially impossible for them. More commonly used are 15%~30% deals during the EA.
"The average price of an Early Access game (for the base edition, as many of the Early Access games have multiple pricing options) is approximately $1 more than the full game release. This demonstrates that players are essentially being charged a premium for early access to the title."
"While some genres feature Early Access editions that are cheaper on average than the released version, other genres such as RPG have Early Access editions that are significantly more expensive than the final product. The RPG genre is a particularly strong example of this with Early Access editions that average $24.24 compared to the full game versions at $19.87."
@JuliusBorisov On actual EA titles currently on steam. Monster Crown being a live example I am currently participating in (€14.99 during EA, €19.99 at release). Record of Lodoss War-Deedlit in Wonder Labyrinth- doesn't quite use the same tactic, but nevertheless still provides routinely 20% off in intervals.
Those are but two small indie studios I personally follow. You will find surprisingly many more teams tucked away on steam using similar EA approaches for garnering customer interest. Nothing mainstream of course, but they do exist.
"Douse says he's seen very few complaints about paying $60 for a game that isn't finished yet, but he still worries about what he sees as a "perception problem" with Early Access. He argues that the $60 still nets Early Access players a full game when it's ready, and in the meantime the ability to play development builds and help shape the game adds additional value.
"It's better to think of Early Access as a playable preorder," he says. "Though of course it isn't exactly that. Its function is entirely to make the game better through pooling feedback and testing ideas, iterating directly with our audience."
While the price of Baldur's Gate 3 won't be reduced for Early Access, Douse notes some other ways that players can get value out of jumping in early.
"If people look back at the history of DOS2, there's a lot of reciprocity," he says. "We have transparent, consistent, intelligent conversations with our players. I think [they] feel listened to when our games are great value, with a huge amount of content, and we often come up with surprises that are more tangible. We don't have such plans for this yet (indeed during DOS2 at this stage we didn't either), but we did the Gift Bag DLCs, Definitive Edition update, etc. Huge investments, released for free. No promises on mirroring that, but I raise it to make the point that there are many other ways to cater to the audience outside of simply discounting at launch."
The Gift Bag DLCs, the latest of which appeared in June, have been given out to everyone, not just people who played during Early Access, but it still means that they've received a lot more than they paid for, even three years after launch.
"There are good ways and bad ways to do Early Access, but I do think we're doing it the right way," Douse says. "The point is we support our players long into EA, long after launch, long into the game's life-span. DOS2's final Gift Bag wasn't very long ago, and it's still getting updates. So I feel pretty strongly that not only is the value there at day one of Early Access, but the value of your $60 exponentially increases year on year in extraordinary ways. This was proven with DOS2, and BG3 is a new start of a similar journey from the same people."
I don't understand at all why anyone is upset about the early access price being the same as the full game. (Especially because the argument seems to be made by folks who claim to not even be interested in buying the game.) I guess I'll take a break from lurking for a second to comment.
Let's assume EA is half of the price of full release. Then what? You would pay another half after release? If not it would be as if you purchase it at 50% discount.
But that's okay because you as the consumer are taking on more risk than the game developer... (hopefully this comes off as sarcasm; I agree with your point)
For BG3 specifically, interested consumers can look at early access as pre-ordering the game, but you also get to play part of the game. That's fun! You even get to beta test! (Look at the Pathfinder Kickstarter. Some people will actually pay more for that privilege.) For BG3, you will eventually get the full game.
I'm interested to see the stats of what early access games never get completed. I would bet most, if not all, of those games were from unknown or small developers. Larian's track record suggest this won't apply to them.
Speaking of small developers and the risk of early access: my understanding of early access is that it was initially intended for small developers to fund their development of a game they might not be able to finish without additional funds. So, yes a discount for those developers/games makes sense to entice consumers who otherwise wouldn't look at the game. But that doesn't apply to Larian or BG3.
Small developers also use early access to advertise their game through word of mouth, which again is why they sell their early access games at a discount: a lower price potentially equals more purchases and more purchases equals more people to stream or talk about a game. I think we can all agree that Larian doesn't need any help marketing the game. If you're interested in BG3, you probably already know about it.
As a general statement for most early access games, I can see why someone would think early access should be cheaper than the full release, but I think that line of thinking applies to games that are more risky to make (meaning the developer isn't well-funded or the game doesn't appeal to a large-enough audience to justify continued development).
I don’t really get the issue here either. Early access is a very simple concept really. We as consumers know exactly what we are getting when we purchase a game through early access (it has been made especially clear in this case). I appreciate that some guys are saying that there have been games before that people have paid for early access on and not got due to developers folding. That would indeed suck. I personally have no issue with it. If I buy a game early access I know exactly what I am getting and if I am unlucky enough to not end up getting the full game because the developer goes out of business that’s my own fault for risking early access. If you don’t like it don’t pay for early access. Simple as that. Pay the full price when the game releases or wait for it to go down in price. No one is forcing anyone to participate in early access. Simple as that. It’s a choice of the consumer.
There's also the optics of "pay us to test our game so we don't have to actually pay testers." I can see a small indie production needing to do this, but a AAA studio like Larian?
Maybe (and I'm not taking sides on this one but maybe) we're just not used to seeing EA titles costing $60..? I've never seen one in any case...
To be honest we're not used for a full price release costing $60, not just EA. I'm curious what will be the price in Polish stores. 60 bucks is VERY high.
I don’t really get the issue here either. Early access is a very simple concept really. We as consumers know exactly what we are getting when we purchase a game through early access (it has been made especially clear in this case). I appreciate that some guys are saying that there have been games before that people have paid for early access on and not got due to developers folding. That would indeed suck. I personally have no issue with it. If I buy a game early access I know exactly what I am getting and if I am unlucky enough to not end up getting the full game because the developer goes out of business that’s my own fault for risking early access. If you don’t like it don’t pay for early access. Simple as that. Pay the full price when the game releases or wait for it to go down in price. No one is forcing anyone to participate in early access. Simple as that. It’s a choice of the consumer.
I'm roughly in this same position. For all the reasons that the critics have raised, that's exactly why I--as a hard rule--just never buy an EA game (and why I'm still very impatiently waiting for AAO to leave EA). As for risk, it is no different than the risk one assumes when backing a crowdfunded game. And on a personal note, if the game developer goes out of business and the game never leaves EA, I would be way more concerned about that company having gone out of business than the loss of a few of my dollars.
Maybe (and I'm not taking sides on this one but maybe) we're just not used to seeing EA titles costing $60..? I've never seen one in any case...
To be honest we're not used for a full price release costing $60, not just EA. I'm curious what will be the price in Polish stores. 60 bucks is VERY high.
60 USD for a new game is pretty standard at this point for a game like this (see Wasteland 3, Jedi Fallen Order, etc). Adjusting for inflation that is a bit more than $50 in 2010 ($50 was a pretty standard price 10 years ago).
Consumers have actually been very fortunate over the last few decades. Prices for new high end games have stayed remarkably stable despite inflation.
In fact, Diablo 2 when it was first released in 2000 had a suggested retail price of $50 USD. Which by todays standards is more like $75. People probably don't realize it now because they waited a year and bought it when it was cheaper.
Edit: Also that link shows that the pre-order for BG2 was $45 which is like $67 today.
Edit: Also that link shows that the pre-order for BG2 was $45 which is like $67 today.
I still vividly remember picking up the Baldur's Gate 2: SoA Collector's Edition (you know, the one with that fancy t-shirt ) at a local retail store in Germany for 20 Deutsche Mark. That's about €13.58 with adjusted inflation nowadays. How nostalgic... Bioware even published free demos for both Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2: SoA back in the days. A nice gesture not many follow in this time and age anymore.
But yeah. The harsh reality is that prices for video games are at an all-time high. During its fig.co campaign it was said that the retail price of Wasteland 3 will be €40. That then changed to €60 when Microsoft acquiring the studio. The Microsoft Flight Simulator even goes by an ludicrous €70! *shakes head*
Edit: Also that link shows that the pre-order for BG2 was $45 which is like $67 today.
I still vividly remember picking up the Baldur's Gate 2: SoA Collector's Edition (you know, the one with that fancy t-shirt ) at a local retail store in Germany for 20 Deutsche Mark. That's about €13.58 with adjusted inflation nowadays. How nostalgic... Bioware even published free demos for both Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2: SoA back in the days. A nice gesture not many follow in this time and age anymore.
But yeah. The harsh reality is that prices for video games are at an all-time high. During its fig.co campaign it was said that the retail price of Wasteland 3 will be €40. That then changed to €60 when Microsoft acquiring the studio. The Microsoft Flight Simulator even goes by an ludicrous €70! *shakes head*
Game prices are not at an all time high when you factor in inflation.
Computer consumers have benefited from the market transition to digital products, and I think that helps explain why game prices have stayed fixed. As Elminster says above, games used to cost the same price one and even two decades ago.
@DinoDin Inflation rates differ from country from country. Hence why local pricing is such a big part of steam and other platforms in the first place. What elminster descripted may very well be true for the US. I am not able to judge that, given that I never visited this country myself. But it was a rather different situation where I grew up in DM times.
The digital game stores for consoles especially sees an all-time price high, even when compared to their physical copies: Breath of the Wild costs €54 boxed. Yet if you want to purchase only the digital switch code it's priced at €70. I wouldn't exactly call a sudden jump of €16 for a game released three years ago as a benefit... Desktop storefronts luckily don't pull that move. The physical local PC copy usually costs the same amount as their GOG or steam counterpart. Not counting massive sales, discounts, second-hand copies or the disregard of local pricing of course.
@DinoDin Inflation rates differ from country from country. Hence why local pricing is such a big part of steam and other platforms in the first place. What elminster descripted may very well be true for the US. I am not able to judge that, given that I never visited this country myself. But it was a rather different situation where I grew up in DM times.
The digital game stores for consoles especially sees an all-time price high, even when compared to their physical copies: Breath of the Wild costs €54 boxed. Yet if you want to purchase only the digital switch code it's priced at €70. I wouldn't exactly call a sudden jump of €16 for a game released three years ago as a benefit... Desktop storefronts luckily don't pull that move. The physical local PC copy usually costs the same amount as their GOG or steam counterpart. Not counting massive sales, discounts, second-hand copies or the disregard of local pricing of course.
I don't want to get deep into economics on here, but this point isn't really true, especially when comparing the Euro and the dollar. The Eurozone and the US have both been growing and relatively stable economies over the past several decades -- meaning small levels of annual inflation have occurred in both places. Meaning decades of games costing relatively the same means games are not at "an all time high" in a realistic sense of that phrase.
I can't speak to your own purchasing power as a Pole or even as an individual. But, broadly speaking, there's never been a more favorable time for consumers of computer games. Especially if you're a tiny bit discerning -- i.e. willing to wait a bit after releases, wait for steam or GOG sales, etc.
Comments
The game interface/UI is being built to accommodate mods that expand party size to six. Assuming such a mod will be forthcoming, I would never even consider playing the game without such a mod.
The five companions revealed so far are deliberately in the neutral to evil side to encourage feedback of evil playthroughs during EA, and the companions that will be revealed later will be more on the good side. Very good news.
I'm sorry but there's no long-shot promise here. Once again, imo, people are inventing odd pre-texts to criticize Larian based on taking one small fact and then either speculating deeply on that or inventing things that aren't true.
Larian isn't some new game company that cannot be trusted to ship a completed project.
The game already is mostly complete, per their own interviews. Early Access is a way to test balance, bug and and other gameplay issues. It's not as if they've only made EA content.
Right. Not only that, but it is a completely optional buy in. Dont like it? Dont do it. It's the same as preordering.
By buying in EA, you are offering to help playtest a game - but in return you are offered the chance to play a game earlier than you otherwise would. It doesnt cost more than the game itself to do that, so it's up to each individual to weigh that as a positive or negative.
I personally have zero interest in EA, despite being fairly excited about the game. I dont want it, so I'm not getting it. More power to those who do.
I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I think is right myself without a bunch of corporations dictating it to me.
The flaws of the "it's standard in the business so it's the right thing to do" should be obvious to anyone without even bringing up parallels to other businesses. Businesses don't care about what is right, they care about making money. We are the ones who care about what is right because we don't want to be treated unfairly.
I mean, it's business standard to not finish the Early Access games people has paid them to make. Only 25% are actually released. Is that right to you too?
Because now isn't then, and what you're getting now isn't what they promise that they'll eventually release. What you get is a part of the game and said promise. Therefore you also should pay less than the full price.
And no, it isn't "safe". The only thing that would make it "safe" would be a money back guarantee if the game isn't finished. Other finished games doesn't mean this one will be. EA is never "safe" because you are spending money without a guarantee that you will receive the game you paid them for. The only guarantee of what you'll get is for the content you receive when you pay -- and since it isn't the full game you shouldn't be paying full price.
This is customer sense 101. People need to stop letting themselves be taken advantage of by robber barons in the games businesses.
It's exactly the same situation with Larian and the Early Access period. It's a question of trust. I have full trust in them because I played their previous games and I like them a lot. It's a no-brainer for me that they are real and hard-working.
Appealing to emotions is all well and fine. But it does little in warranting prices, marketing campaigns, or anything else business related really.
It's ok if you think that way. But it doesn't explain why an EA title should be cheaper than the full game. Beamdog, Larian, Obsidian, Owlcat, InXile, - all these companies care about players and their products. They work on their games for years, including after release.
Early Access, or Kickstarter, or any other venue where it's possible to get a big closed beta, is the only way for these companies to provide something players want.
No gnomes yet, I hope? Or have they been confirmed to not be in the final game? I need my shorty fix!
That's beside the point and you know it.
You'll find the explanation to that if you look at the rest of the post too.
Let's assume EA is half of the price of full release. Then what? You would pay another half after release? If not it would be as if you purchase it at 50% discount.
The reduced price in such a situation acts as an incentive for buyers, as well as a 'thank you' for said willing testers. And in turn the studio earns for utilizing such a long term price tactic a much larger amount of testers, along with a bigger pool of feedback and their community's goodwill that way. It is actually quite a popular way for smaller indie teams to survive on steam. Even if a 50% off is financially impossible for them. More commonly used are 15%~30% deals during the EA.
What do you base your facts on?
Those are but two small indie studios I personally follow. You will find surprisingly many more teams tucked away on steam using similar EA approaches for garnering customer interest. Nothing mainstream of course, but they do exist.
"Douse says he's seen very few complaints about paying $60 for a game that isn't finished yet, but he still worries about what he sees as a "perception problem" with Early Access. He argues that the $60 still nets Early Access players a full game when it's ready, and in the meantime the ability to play development builds and help shape the game adds additional value.
"It's better to think of Early Access as a playable preorder," he says. "Though of course it isn't exactly that. Its function is entirely to make the game better through pooling feedback and testing ideas, iterating directly with our audience."
While the price of Baldur's Gate 3 won't be reduced for Early Access, Douse notes some other ways that players can get value out of jumping in early.
"If people look back at the history of DOS2, there's a lot of reciprocity," he says. "We have transparent, consistent, intelligent conversations with our players. I think [they] feel listened to when our games are great value, with a huge amount of content, and we often come up with surprises that are more tangible. We don't have such plans for this yet (indeed during DOS2 at this stage we didn't either), but we did the Gift Bag DLCs, Definitive Edition update, etc. Huge investments, released for free. No promises on mirroring that, but I raise it to make the point that there are many other ways to cater to the audience outside of simply discounting at launch."
The Gift Bag DLCs, the latest of which appeared in June, have been given out to everyone, not just people who played during Early Access, but it still means that they've received a lot more than they paid for, even three years after launch.
"There are good ways and bad ways to do Early Access, but I do think we're doing it the right way," Douse says. "The point is we support our players long into EA, long after launch, long into the game's life-span. DOS2's final Gift Bag wasn't very long ago, and it's still getting updates. So I feel pretty strongly that not only is the value there at day one of Early Access, but the value of your $60 exponentially increases year on year in extraordinary ways. This was proven with DOS2, and BG3 is a new start of a similar journey from the same people."
But that's okay because you as the consumer are taking on more risk than the game developer... (hopefully this comes off as sarcasm; I agree with your point)
For BG3 specifically, interested consumers can look at early access as pre-ordering the game, but you also get to play part of the game. That's fun! You even get to beta test! (Look at the Pathfinder Kickstarter. Some people will actually pay more for that privilege.) For BG3, you will eventually get the full game.
I'm interested to see the stats of what early access games never get completed. I would bet most, if not all, of those games were from unknown or small developers. Larian's track record suggest this won't apply to them.
Speaking of small developers and the risk of early access: my understanding of early access is that it was initially intended for small developers to fund their development of a game they might not be able to finish without additional funds. So, yes a discount for those developers/games makes sense to entice consumers who otherwise wouldn't look at the game. But that doesn't apply to Larian or BG3.
Small developers also use early access to advertise their game through word of mouth, which again is why they sell their early access games at a discount: a lower price potentially equals more purchases and more purchases equals more people to stream or talk about a game. I think we can all agree that Larian doesn't need any help marketing the game. If you're interested in BG3, you probably already know about it.
As a general statement for most early access games, I can see why someone would think early access should be cheaper than the full release, but I think that line of thinking applies to games that are more risky to make (meaning the developer isn't well-funded or the game doesn't appeal to a large-enough audience to justify continued development).
To be honest we're not used for a full price release costing $60, not just EA. I'm curious what will be the price in Polish stores. 60 bucks is VERY high.
I'm roughly in this same position. For all the reasons that the critics have raised, that's exactly why I--as a hard rule--just never buy an EA game (and why I'm still very impatiently waiting for AAO to leave EA). As for risk, it is no different than the risk one assumes when backing a crowdfunded game. And on a personal note, if the game developer goes out of business and the game never leaves EA, I would be way more concerned about that company having gone out of business than the loss of a few of my dollars.
60 USD for a new game is pretty standard at this point for a game like this (see Wasteland 3, Jedi Fallen Order, etc). Adjusting for inflation that is a bit more than $50 in 2010 ($50 was a pretty standard price 10 years ago).
Consumers have actually been very fortunate over the last few decades. Prices for new high end games have stayed remarkably stable despite inflation.
In fact, Diablo 2 when it was first released in 2000 had a suggested retail price of $50 USD. Which by todays standards is more like $75. People probably don't realize it now because they waited a year and bought it when it was cheaper.
Edit: Also that link shows that the pre-order for BG2 was $45 which is like $67 today.
But yeah. The harsh reality is that prices for video games are at an all-time high. During its fig.co campaign it was said that the retail price of Wasteland 3 will be €40. That then changed to €60 when Microsoft acquiring the studio. The Microsoft Flight Simulator even goes by an ludicrous €70! *shakes head*
this is not laraian's first ea it's their 3rd. it worked fine for them for dos 1 and 2 so i don't see them stopping.
Game prices are not at an all time high when you factor in inflation.
Computer consumers have benefited from the market transition to digital products, and I think that helps explain why game prices have stayed fixed. As Elminster says above, games used to cost the same price one and even two decades ago.
The digital game stores for consoles especially sees an all-time price high, even when compared to their physical copies: Breath of the Wild costs €54 boxed. Yet if you want to purchase only the digital switch code it's priced at €70. I wouldn't exactly call a sudden jump of €16 for a game released three years ago as a benefit... Desktop storefronts luckily don't pull that move. The physical local PC copy usually costs the same amount as their GOG or steam counterpart. Not counting massive sales, discounts, second-hand copies or the disregard of local pricing of course.
I don't want to get deep into economics on here, but this point isn't really true, especially when comparing the Euro and the dollar. The Eurozone and the US have both been growing and relatively stable economies over the past several decades -- meaning small levels of annual inflation have occurred in both places. Meaning decades of games costing relatively the same means games are not at "an all time high" in a realistic sense of that phrase.
I can't speak to your own purchasing power as a Pole or even as an individual. But, broadly speaking, there's never been a more favorable time for consumers of computer games. Especially if you're a tiny bit discerning -- i.e. willing to wait a bit after releases, wait for steam or GOG sales, etc.