1) that exists with full release games as well, just look at cyberpunk. Come too think of it they could have got much less backlash by slapping EA on that game. I suppose a non release could be a worry with some developers but I think BG3 release is as close to 100% certain as it gets.

2) no different than a preorder. I pre ordered elden ring before it even had a release date.

3)feedback is totally optional and or totally automated. I played 30 hours of EA and never encounter a serious bug or was bother for feedback.

The elephant in the room though is that EA is totally optional. If one doesn’t like it just buy it at full release. No harm, no foul imo.

Obviously this is all in the eye of the beholder. I am highly anticipating the game and love to tinker with builds so I would have actually paid a 10-20 dollar premium. Could you imagine couchpotatoes head would have exploded. :lol:

I don’t feel that way. I think they genuinely believe EA is the way to go and like to get the feed back from their customers. I’m generally a glass half full gal though so maybe I’m being naive.

At the end of the day though to EA or not to EA is a personal decision. I just don’t feel it’s dishonest or shady in this instance. :)

@Imo.

Yes, there is always a risk, but it's higher with an EA. Pre-orders are similar, but aren't they often at a reduced price? So are EAs, usually. And while the feedback is optional, they're counting on it, they do it because many will provide it.

CP should probably be tagged "EA", we can already agree on that :lol:

So you think it's normal to have a game in Early Access between, say Oct 2020 and Dec 2022 (let's be optimistic) at full price? To each their own, but I'd be curious to hear the opinion of other people on that. I demand a poll on the sensitive questions of Early Access! :D

But indeed, ultimately it's all a matter of balance between our utility (playing a game which is incomplete and in a "bad" state, but earlier) and theirs (getting our feedback and our money).

(is "utility" the right English word for it, in economics?)

If that works, I suppose that statistically both parties are fine, but I'm not sure that would work so well with any developer. Larian has made a bet on their popularity and the sheer number of customers to fix the price, knowing that even at full price enough people would buy it, driven by the hype of the game.

So I can agree on "opportunistic" rather than "dishonest", that seems more appropriate. :)