Why Beamdog is not making Baldur's Gate 3?

[neuronfly]

So we all know that WOTC has given the rights of Baldur's Gate 3 to Larian. But the question is why Beamdog did not get the rights of BG3? Why WOTC choose Larian and not Beamdog?

[Damn_Monkey]

Because Siege of Dragonspear is why.

And we should all be thankful.

[neuronfly]

Originally posted by Damn_Monkey:

Because Siege of Dragonspear is why.

And we should all be thankful.

I did not play that expansion. What was so bad about it?

[Tasi]

Originally posted by neuronfly:

I did not play that expansion. What was so bad about it?

Please read about it. Discussing it just starts flame. There are lots of information about it (reviews, articles, youtube videos). It is not about refusing to give you information. It is more about avoiding emotional discussions.

[neuronfly]

Originally posted by Tasi:

Originally posted by neuronfly:

I did not play that expansion. What was so bad about it?

Please read about it. Discussing it just starts flame. There are lots of information about it (reviews, articles, youtube videos). It is not about refusing to give you information. It is more about avoiding emotional discussions.

So Siege of Dragonspear was the only reason WOTC did not choose Beamdog?

[Tasi]

Originally posted by neuronfly:

So Siege of Dragonspear was the only reason WOTC did not choose Beamdog?

I do not know how the licence to Baldur's Gate 3 has be acquired. Was it requested by Larian? Has it been requested by Beamdog before? If you will have any information regarding that, I would welcome if you share them. On the other hand I am not concerned about it too much so I will not search for it myself.

[wendigo211]

Probably because: DOS (2) sold really well, Larian is a much bigger developer (capable of pulling off a AAA or at least AA release) and most of the Black Isle/Bioware people who worked on the original IE games refuse to work with WoTC again.

[Blastershift]

I think it comes down to WOTC trust. They need a company that has capital, on-going revenue, a decent and growable pool of talent.

Ability to demonstrate that, and launch successful products and other factors why I Larian got it. This is just my theory.

Beamdog, while I do love those guys, wouldn't be able to ramp up to almost 300+ staff, and maintain a 4+ year development cycle, including post launch, and possible expansion or the next game.

[fauxpas]

The answer is simple, bd can't deliver original content that people want while Larian can, and as a corporation, WotC cares more about profit than "wokeness". ... And thank God for that.

[AlexMBrennan]

I think it comes down to WOTC trust. They need a company that has capital

That doesn't make any sense - their earlier work was funded by a publisher (Ubisoft) and their recent games have been crowdfunded.

They didn't get the license because of their cash reserves.

[zanathas]

My question is will Larian somewhere down the line develop an enhanced version to the game? Or will the game be made with every single bell and whistle thrown into it at the offset?

[Capitalist]

Thank's for don't do it beamdog :)

[Arsene Lupin]

Originally posted by neuronfly:

Originally posted by Damn_Monkey:

Because Siege of Dragonspear is why.

And we should all be thankful.

I did not play that expansion. What was so bad about it?

It was pretty poorly-written... but generally speaking the people that are super angry about it are a bunch of alt-right incel dweebs, incensed (even years after the fact) that Dragonspear included a single trans character.

[wendigo211]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

I think it comes down to WOTC trust. They need a company that has capital

That doesn't make any sense - their earlier work was funded by a publisher (Ubisoft) and their recent games have been crowdfunded.

They didn't get the license because of their cash reserves.

They got most of the money through traditional means (banks, venture captialists, their own reserves from previous projects). The amount they raised from crowdfunding was a small part of the capital they raised. Part of the reason that DOS looks so good compared to other crowdfunded CRPGS (PoE, Wasteland 2, Tides of Numenera) is that it had a much larger budget.

When you look at the devs who would have the capability/experience to make a big budget CRPG, you're really looking at:
CDPR
Obsidian
Bioware
Larian
Bethesda
InXile
OEI is owned my Microsoft now and, after NWN2, they said they never want to work with WotC again. Bioware is owned by EA and also only wants to work on their own IPs. InXile has a pretty bad track record of late with Tides of Numenera and Bard's Tale 4. That leaves: CDPR, Larian and Bethesda. CDPR would probably be the best choice, but IDK if they would want to work with WotC. I'd rather have Larian than another Bethsoft sandbox.

[voehringer_nitron]

Bethesda is plodding along with some other projects. Starport or whatever it's called and (eventually) TES 6. And after Fallout 76 (which I haven't played)...

[PancakeWizard]

Originally posted by neuronfly:

So we all know that WOTC has given the rights of Baldur's Gate 3 to Larian. But the question is why Beamdog did not get the rights of BG3? Why WOTC choose Larian and not Beamdog?

Long story short: Not talented enough, creatively.

Might sound harsh, but while I love what they did with EE versions for the quality of life improvements, fixes and keeping the games going into the Windows 10 and tablet era, I think it's well known that the weakest elements are the stuff they made themselves (new NPCs, new expak).