I have some criticisms of Veilguard I'd like to talk about. Important note, these are only criticisms I have problems with, there are other criticisms I understand and somewhat agree with.
Excellent points. I'm especially frustrated with how much everyone seems to forget the early access time that BG3 got -- without which, it wouldn't have been nearly as successful, as you point out well.
Whether it's "early access" for a single-player game or the year or so that live-service games need to properly find their feet, it feels like every major game these days needs a good few years of early access to reach their full potential. The potential benefits from the community feedback, free QA, word of mouth, and mid-development cycle boost in funds are simply invaluable. But games that come through large publishers simply don't get that sort of leeway from fans the same way that independent studios do (as if BG3 was from some tiny, unknown studio).
I think Early Access can also be a double edged sword. BG3 did it really well and was really successful with it but there are so many Early Access games out there that just stop being updated eventually without even hitting 1.0 thus becoming abandonware. The same thing happens with many Live Service games during that first year.
Basically, Early Access or the first year or so of Live Service games, can only work out with a good Dev behind it who knows how to use it to their advantage. And who usually has been through it before. Thanks for your comment!
Excellent points. I'm especially frustrated with how much everyone seems to forget the early access time that BG3 got -- without which, it wouldn't have been nearly as successful, as you point out well.
Whether it's "early access" for a single-player game or the year or so that live-service games need to properly find their feet, it feels like every major game these days needs a good few years of early access to reach their full potential. The potential benefits from the community feedback, free QA, word of mouth, and mid-development cycle boost in funds are simply invaluable. But games that come through large publishers simply don't get that sort of leeway from fans the same way that independent studios do (as if BG3 was from some tiny, unknown studio).
I think Early Access can also be a double edged sword. BG3 did it really well and was really successful with it but there are so many Early Access games out there that just stop being updated eventually without even hitting 1.0 thus becoming abandonware. The same thing happens with many Live Service games during that first year.
Basically, Early Access or the first year or so of Live Service games, can only work out with a good Dev behind it who knows how to use it to their advantage. And who usually has been through it before. Thanks for your comment!