I would do that but with how many times I've heard that saves are invalidated with every major patch requiring people to start over, I really can't do that. Otherwise, I would though, because Larian has proven themselves time and time again for me. They're like a more fringe/indie CDPR, at least IMHO.

I have mixed feelings on it, personally. On one hand, if it's a studio like Larian who genuinely does the best they can to keep the players satisfied, I don't take issue with it because I know they'll finish the game and investing early just helps create a better game (even though I, personally, wouldn't buy it for $60 while it's in early access). On the other hand, you get a lot of scams where devs do that and then never finish the game. So yeah, like I said, I have mixed thoughts regarding that model.

the actual game \ patch is 65.69G... it's just the silly network system Gog has that adds the temp files

If they're like CDPR, does that mean BG3 has content locked behind Galaxy requirements and possible upcoming microtransactions? :) If so, that would be a reason for us to stop playing the BG series at the previous installment.

The first part is an exaggeration, the second one is a rumor just like the crap you see for films on Wegotthiscovered.

It is the next installment of a lauded series, dungeons and dragons has the best chicks, sells the most on some popular streaming format and can even be played by complete zombies !!

Every new post the urge for trying out becomes greater and greater, not to mention the dlss addition which is becoming a major selling point!

Solasta is badly made, Larian has their issues but that is apples to bananas

Bg3 still needs Monk, Pally, Bard and Barbarian and will be at least another year because farming out work makes for a slow build which then has to be bug tested once all the different parts are put back together so that's late 2022 at best and imo mid 2023 is prob when its really finished to a stable standard

as for playing on Windows, if your Gpu is more than 1 year old then set the defaults to medium... your Ram and Cpu doesn't really matter as much

I love Larian games but. I don't understand how a game can justify the bloated storage requirements,It isnt a drop in the occasion.Data wise or bandwidth wise. I havent seen any games which need more than 80gb at this point....

You haven't been paying any attention for some years then. There are 100+ GB games, and there are 150+ GB games. Apparently Ark: Survival Evolved is 300+ GB with all DLC/maps. This is mostly because of 1) textures, 2) sound, 3) models. These are already compressed, so any significant space savings would have to be achieved by removing content, or having worse quality by reducing texture sizes or using higher compression, none of which would go over very well with most gamers. In some cases it would be possible to have better compression with little apparent quality loss using compute-intensive methods, but the cost is longer loading times, which generally annoys people more than big file sizes. One thing that could help some games is to make localizations optional downloads, since those can sometimes add up to a decent chunk of the file size for stuff you'll never use. Aside from that, though, large game sizes are typically the price you have to pay when you want lots of content with fancy graphics and tens of thousands of lines of voiced dialog.

I'll stick to older games and games from smaller indie devs then, who are making great games that don't have a ridiculous amount of graphical bloat. Seriously, a game would have to be one of the top-20 of all time for me to put up with downloading/storing 100+GB. Otherwise, they can forget it.

Storage is cheap and plentiful; that's not really an issue. Downloading certainly can be, especially in the US where there are vast areas served by terrible-quality internet.

But you don't obligate to play early access if you worried about old saves. I take a peek once, find game extremely enjoyable and now I am patiently waiting for release.

Well yes, I'm sure I'll enjoy it but I don't want to pay $60 for a game that I'll regularly lose progress in until it fully launches.