Industry News / Upcoming Games

Antimatter said:

Seems like we'll be coming back to Baldur's Gate...

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/a-baldurs-gate-2-remake-is-apparently-in-development-with-the-original-co-lead-designer-returning/

Click to expand...

You know, I have nothing against BG remakes. I'd always thought the EEs should have been remakes, with graphics updates (on par with, say, the POE games) and more stable engines. And I'm now at the point where the games are too dated for me to enjoy (I haven't played BG1 or 2 in nearly two years). But at this point, the enduring value in these games is as much about mods as it is about the original content. How happy are the old heads going to be to play without SCS?

They might, of course, attract new players. But if the goal is to bolster their D&D CRPG market base, why the fuck can't they create original IP?

BG4 is downright ridiculous imo. Gimme a break - or better yet, a new, original story.

Antimatter said:

Well, since this is a remake, not a remaster, I don't think any of the old mods will work. Remakes are usually like a new game, using a new game engine, etc. Might be similar to what the Mafia 1 remake did?

Mafia: Definitive Edition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

I know, i'm joking of course. They clearly plan to do some modern graphic remake using 5th edition rules.

But, not joking here, if they don't have modding tools and are not developing with those in mind they won't be doing the game justice and don't really understand the longevity of these games.

Just learned about BG1 and BG2 getting a remake.

As an enjoyer of those two games, on one side I am glad. These two games are extraordinary important and dear to me, and so them receiving some attention makes me happy.

On the other hand, nowadays Baldur's Gate, as a IP, is mostly recognized through Larian's bullthing and OCs, which is very concerning for me. It is prime opportunity to screw BG1 and BG2 up by various means, either by modernizing it for Larian's audience or make them fit Larian's idea of canon.

There are other things that are concerning, but might be resolved upon game's release. You know, things like SCS, Ascension etc.

In short and without any further venom from me: I see a great opportunity and equally great reasons for concern.

Well, Larian is out of the picture now. As for emulating Larian's game design, that would likely be far too expensive and time consuming. I suspect it will remain a classical isometric title with cosmetic upgrades. I'd expect it to look more like Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder than BG3.

The other thing is time: if they're aiming to use it to fill the gap until BG4, then they'll have to get moving. It makes me wonder if it's going to be a full remake? Will we see all the NPCs? All the side quests and content?

They could still completely screw it up, of course. But if that happens, we still have the originals. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Welp:

• Brand Partnerships and Gameplay Integrations: EA Advertising partners directly with brands and agencies to create custom integrations designed for specific games and audiences. These collaborations bring brands into the experience through interactive moments, like in-game challenges, reward-driven objectives, and branded content. Brands can also opt into customizations like curated vanity items. Each integration is designed to reflect how fans engage with sports, games and culture, helping drive deeper engagement and brand connection.
• Ad Units in 3D Sports Simulations: Advertisers can now reach fans through native ad units in select EA SPORTS games, including digital ad boards, scoreboards, and brand broadcast overlays. Ads are dynamically served within the 3D environment, with impression measurement aligned to IAB standards for greater targeting and consistency.
• Enhanced Targeting and Measurement Capabilities: Brands can connect with relevant audiences across EA’s franchises using advanced targeting powered by EA’s new proprietary ad server and SDK, custom built for EA’s Frostbite game engine. Advertisers can now collaborate with EA in a privacy-safe way to improve targeting and gain deeper campaign insights. EA ensures ads are viewable, delivered to real audiences, and measured using industry-accredited standards in partnership with Integral Ad Science.
• EA SPORTS Partner Program: As part of EA Advertising, the EA SPORTS Partner Program introduces a new model for how brands participate in sports culture—moving beyond traditional sponsorship into co-created fan experiences built in, around, and beyond the game. Designed as a premium ecosystem for a select group of official partners, the program gives brands access to one of the world’s most engaged sports communities through opportunities ranging from live events like EA SPORTS Presents Madden Bowl and franchise tentpole moments such as Ratings Reveals, to in-game integrations, live service activations, creator tools, social play experiences, and community-driven programs. The program also extends into broader cultural and athlete-driven initiatives, including GEN / EA SPORTS, the company’s next-generation athlete platform focused on shaping the future storytelling and participation across sports fandom.

Several studios in Microsoft Corp.’s Xbox gaming division, including Montreal-based Compulsion Games and San Francisco-based Double Fine, are in active negotiations to spin off as they try to thwart closure, according to people familiar with the company’s plans.

Cambridge, England-based Ninja Theory, the maker of Hellblade, is also in conversations with Xbox, as are several other studios across the portfolio that are at risk of being shuttered.

The studios may still have the opportunity to buy themselves back from Xbox and go independent, although many employees will likely lose their jobs as a result.

And in other news:


A sequel to the 2025 Xbox RPG, Avowed 2 is reportedly in early development at the studio, according to former employee and RPG legend Chris Avellone.

Avellone, who co-founded the studio in 2003, revealed on Twitter that the game is in early development. However, the original game’s director Carrie Patel, is no longer helming the sequel.

On the social media platform, Avellone revealed that “formerly ‘safe’ studios now are telling employees they aren’t sure how the management changes will impact the studio”.

At the time of writing, according to multiple outlets, Xbox is planning to close three studios: Compulsion Games, Double Fine, and Ninja Theory. However, Avellone suggests that more could be on the chopping block.

With that in mind, Avellone explained that Obsidian is working on multiple projects. Alongside continued support for Grounded 2, Obsidian is working on Avowed 2 alongside “non-Avowed titles” that are ramping up production.

Some assumed that Fallout New Vegas lead and Pillars of Eternity co-creator Josh Sawyer was set to helm the upcoming sequel. However, Avellone revealed that this has changed with Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer creative lead George Ziets now spearheading the project.

“He [Sawyer] isn’t leading Avowed 2 any more than he did the first one (which he initially seemed distanced from until the final months, prob[ably] to inspire purchaser confidence),” Avellone said. “Also, the IP was intended as a joint effort across the company, but that didn’t last long.”

“Before you get too disappointed, George Ziets is believed to be heading up the creative,” he continued, “and George is pretty great in all respects.”

After years of debate and speculation, Rockstar Games has finally confirmed how much Grand Theft Auto 6 will cost. The "biggest video game of all time" will jump $10 over the standard price of AAA games and run for $80, rather than $70.

Is this the sign that other games and companies will follow suit?

Antimatter said:

Is this the sign that other games and companies will follow suit?

Click to expand...

Most likely and it's not unexpected

I bet there will be dynamic pricing soon, too.

Yeah, this seems to be the direction the industry is going. It sucks for people that care about the new hotness. I honestly don't see why anyone cares about the AAA scene anymore. Increased prices, decreased quality and post-release support. It makes no sense to me.

The following 7 days will be a dark time in gaming, with XBOX preparing to lay off 1000+ employees and shut down 5+ studios...

https://www.theverge.com/report/959467/microsoft-xbox-cancel-blade-game-arkane-studios-closure

But I wanted to bring up the fact that yesterday, during the AB 1921 (Protect Our Games Act) committee hearing, an ESA (Entertainment Software Association) representative argued that Minecraft community servers are illegal (like, wat???).

The remarks quickly went viral, while the Stop Killing Games campaign rejected the interpretation (of course!) and accused the ESA of making misleading claims. The campaign also challenged several other ESA claims, including that the bill would require "forever support" or force developers to build entirely "new products."

The bill didn’t make it out of committee, losing by a 4-3 vote with a few members abstaining. Stop Killing Games says it plans to come back with stronger backing in the next session and is also looking into pushing similar legislation in more US states and at the federal level.

This is so sad to see/hear.

Wait, I'm not sure I understand. Is this like a pretend Senate made up of Minecraft players on a public server? Because I can't I fathom the industry attempting to use the government against the people they want to buy their products. That's just silly.

Meanwhile, in other games...



Hey kids! Remember me! I'm the game you only need to buy once (actually, it's free now) and you can have decades of fun! No strings attached!

But seriously, I read that Hasbro is moving to a subscription model for the current edition and when they drop support for a line, it will just disappear.

I honestly don't know why people are putting up with this crap. It's not food. It's not housing. It's the most discretionary of income that people can simply be discretionary about. Vote with your dollar and all that. Like, seriously, I think people underestimate the power of just not consuming.

Then again, maybe that actually is what's happening. The industry is in a death spiral between getting more aggressive with their money grab and people dropping out of the market because of the money grab.

On the tabletop side of things, I've spent literally less than $20 on the hobby in the last 25 years and Hasbro got none of it. $5 was for a chessex set of d6s on sale that I liked, then $12 was for a set of polyhedrals I had to buy in a pinch. Hasbro has done everything imaginable to villainize themselves to their consumers. I don't feel bad for them at all.

The layoff thing is sad, not just because people are losing their jobs, but people are losing their jobs because the consumers are sending a message and the industry just isn't listening.

But, the silver lining is that it's the bigger companies (i.e. perpetrators of the problem) that are suffering far more than the smaller indie companies (some of which are not suffering at all). They need more revenue to stay fed. They suffer more consequences if they don't reach goal. So it goes when you're too big of an organism. The dinosaurs went extinct, but bees and salamanders survived just fine.

I have been thinking about this a lot, both in general and since the post. I also have a background in business health and projections (albeit in a very different industry) so sometimes I like to take that and do something fun with it like look at gaming. I actually think there is a silver lining to all this, or at least hope for the future. If you look at ESA and all the companies engaging in these unsavory business practices, it is all the big corporate-owned producers. There is nothing existentially wrong or doomed with video games as a product, the problem comes from the (predatory) business practices these large corporations need to utilize in order for such a large organization to survive. Meanwhile, you have tons of smaller independent studios who are doing just fine. Mobius (run by Masi Oka from Heroes) is still afloat and recently even hired a new engineer. Mossmouth is a one-man project (though he collabs with other creators, too) and is still producing games (his most recent release getting 'Overwhelmingly Positive' reviews on Steam). Supergiant has grown over the years (still indie, though) and I remember something about them having the highest rated game of all time on console.

I should add that UFO 50 (Mossmouth) and Hades (Supergiant) regularly sell for $25 and that Outer Wilds: Echo of the Eye has a standard price of $15. I could buy all three for around the same price as the newest Doom game.

I think that right there is the future. Video games will continue to be viable, just not as these major multi-billion dollar affairs. The more sustainable options will be these smaller, less-expensive boutique operations. I hope those 1000+ laid off employees move on to coalesce into smaller teams and start their own development companies. It is just going to create more competition for Microsoft and accelerate their death spiral. I have a few potential future predictions.

1) Big industry becomes no longer a sustainable enterprise. They don't give up entirely, but their market base dwindles and the consumer experience will turn into something complete different than the indie scene (which will have more total consumers). However, even the viability of that is going to depend on how AI unfolds in general and the impact it has on the economy (namely people's disposable incomes). Personally, I don't think we're headed into a Skynet era that people are so worried about, but the impact over the next 5-10 years is going to be pretty significant. There is a lot working against big industry right now.

2) The big companies currently hold the licenses to a lot of franchises so they may attempt to kill access to these games and then put them by some kind of paywall so they can generate some passive income off of them without having any studios to support them. New piracy platforms (think Napster and BitTorrent) will emerge in response.

3) More boutique studios will emerge. It used to be that being indie, making something cool, then letting a corporation buy you out was a good business move. That is not the case anymore. The real talent at these places are the grunts in the trenches getting laid off, not the executive VP of anti-fun getting a bonus for pushing the layoffs. The smart move for the talent to think smaller and go to smaller operations. There will be more long term viability for the 'little guys' to stay 'little guys'.

4) As people shy away from the AAA studios, indie studios will start to thrive more and actually be able to compete better with AAA. Part of this is that indie studios are much better equipped to utilize geographic hybridization. They don't need to maintain a presence on the west coast to succeed. Indie developers are already spread out across the U.S. As California gets more expensive relative to the rest of the nation, that is going to put even more pressure on big industry that the indie scene won't have to deal with nearly as much. They will still probably tap into west coast talent for things like VO, but their core development can be completed divorced from that area.

5) Console gaming will go through a real rough patch. The war of X-box vs. Sony will end with no winners because the bottom will fall out both markets. However, because they still own the hardware side of things and will see money to be made there, they may engage in predatory practices with indie developers on licensing to increase their profits. There is a good chance this would backfire. Indie games tend to have lower hardware requirements. Consoles cost at least $500. You can buy a gaming laptop that can run pretty much any indie game for probably $300ish. Indie gamers are already biased towards PC gaming. PCs have better life cycles than console hardware. Distribution costs are the highest for console, next highest for Steam, and then finally there are the more consumer-oriented platforms like GOG. At the rate we're going, indie developers can afford to lose the console market, but the console market can't afford to lose titles. For their sake, I hope the console distributors figure that out. But, even if they do, it is going to be a more adversarial relationship with the studios due to the console distribution platforms always looking for a way to make more money.

6) Steam could go either way here. They used to be a more more gamer-oriented platform, but they have slowly been creeping away from that. My take is that they crossed the line over to the dark side once they established the Steam deck (which is even more expensive than a console). Their move with the class action waiver also knocked them down a few pegs. They aren't a lost cause, but I am not super optimistic about their future. FWIW, I stopped buying games on Steam years ago and now just do GoG. Frankly, the only thing I use Steam for nowadays is to chat with long time gamer friends from around the world (we have our own group chat there).

7) If this does happen and the consumer base shifts more to the indie market, then video game quality (i.e. all the release/support issues we complain about here ) will likely improve. Indie developers care more about releasing a polished product and continuing support after release. Terraria, for example, was released over 15 years ago and the development team is still working on improvements for it. This also creates a greater potential for truly brilliant work. Smaller studios can afford to be niche rather than catering to the lowest common denominator. These are the spaces where innovation can really shine.

So, yeah, put on your poncho and prepare for the storm, but everything is going to be ok in the long run.

That is such a good and well-thought-out post, @JustKneller. I agree with almost everything you say there. Hades is such a brilliant videogame, and Supergiant is a well-run studio. They are among the companies I value and follow. Other such companies are Remedy, CDPR, Larian, and Owlcat. More companies join that category (just look at Expedition 33 and Dispatch developers last year, for example).

There are still good games from the AAA scene, and even from the companies under megaconglomerations, such as WarHorse (Embracer), Machine Games (XBOX), Ryu Ga Gotoku (SEGA). Some of my most favourite games are from them.

I like smaller indie games a lot. So I guess there are no categories of games that I can't enjoy. And it's hard to compare (for me), for example, Control from Remedy to Yakuza from RGG, in terms of which game I like more.

And I guess each of these can be successful. What is harming (and, like, really-really harming everything) is the huge investment of megaconglomerations into AI, which leads to cutting everything else.

Antimatter said:

There are still good games from the AAA scene, and even from the companies under megaconglomerations, such as WarHorse (Embracer), Machine Games (XBOX), Ryu Ga Gotoku (SEGA). Some of my most favourite games are from them.

And I guess each of these can be successful. What is harming (and, like, really-really harming everything) is the huge investment of megaconglomerations into AI, which leads to cutting everything else.

Click to expand...

I basically agree with you here. Though, I would say that the kind of content (at least the quality of gameplay) you get from the AAA scene can survive in the indie scene, even if it can't survive the megacorp business model. I think the casualties in that shift would be specific franchises, though (and that kinda sucks, but you know what they say about omelets and eggs). For example, I don't think Fallout (ironically?) would survive the megacorp apocalypse. But then again, Bethesda already has ruined that franchise for good. Probably not a good example. But, maybe it is, actually. Whether the franchise goes to crap or its future gets cut short by a megacorp (be it by ending support or determining future projects are not viable), the game can still kinda live on. With Fallout, Bethesda basically killed it, but the spirit lived on in Wasteland 2 by InXile (which was independent at the time). You don't really need the franchise when you have a well made spiritual successor.

How do you figure AI is harming things? It's definitely causing problems for the talent (job security) on a megacorp level, but at the indie level it has less impact. Partly for cost, indie developers are using AI more judiciously (good), yet still can price their products more reasonably than AAA titles (good). The megacorps have a much bigger buy in with AI and it is costing them a lot more to use it (good), particularly through accumulating token costs (oh well). It's main benefit is allowing them to compress development timelines and rush games out quicker, but they're already in the red for product quality at release so shortening that timetable isn't going to help them. AI is hurting megacorp business models, but not the viability of producing quality games. Keep in mind, that the savings aren't being passed to the consumer, so you are still going to have rising product and hardware costs compared to what you get with indie games. The only edge that the megacorps will have when the dust settles is IP exclusivity, for as much as people will care about it at that point. However, even with an IP edge, the market is going to be so fragmented that the liklihood of gaining adequate visibility will be pretty low.

I think the main downside to AI is that smaller (particularly individual) developers will be able to crank out low quality content and saturate the market with garbage (bad). I have already seen a version of this in the tabletop rpg gaming scene, though with self-publishing instead of AI, but AI is making that even worse. Market oversaturation is bad for everyone. Good producers will get lost in the sauce, and consumers will have trouble sifting through it all. I feel really bad for someone getting into TTRPGs these days who doesn't have a strong knowledge of the history of the hobby. I really hope that when we get to that point, we have tools to filter out AI slop and make it less overwhelming. But, I'm optimistically hoping that the smaller business models and market saturation will at least drive prices down for the consumer.

JustKneller said:

How do you figure AI is harming things? It's definitely causing problems for the talent (job security) on a megacorp level, but at the indie level it has less impact. Partly for cost, indie developers are using AI more judiciously (good), yet still can price their products more reasonably than AAA titles (good). The megacorps have a much bigger buy in with AI and it is costing them a lot more to use it (good), particularly through accumulating token costs (oh well). It's main benefit is allowing them to compress development timelines and rush games out quicker, but they're already in the red for product quality at release so shortening that timetable isn't going to help them. AI is hurting megacorp business models, but not the viability of producing quality games. Keep in mind, that the savings aren't being passed to the consumer, so you are still going to have rising product and hardware costs compared to what you get with indie games. The only edge that the megacorps will have when the dust settles is IP exclusivity, for as much as people will care about it at that point. However, even with an IP edge, the market is going to be so fragmented that the liklihood of gaining adequate visibility will be pretty low.

I think the main downside to AI is that smaller (particularly individual) developers will be able to crank out low quality content and saturate the market with garbage (bad). I have already seen a version of this in the tabletop rpg gaming scene, though with self-publishing instead of AI, but AI is making that even worse. Market oversaturation is bad for everyone. Good producers will get lost in the sauce, and consumers will have trouble sifting through it all. I feel really bad for someone getting into TTRPGs these days who doesn't have a strong knowledge of the history of the hobby. I really hope that when we get to that point, we have tools to filter out AI slop and make it less overwhelming. But, I'm optimistically hoping that the smaller business models and market saturation will at least drive prices down for the consumer.

Click to expand...

Btw, the myriad of AI slop games was already visible during the last Steam Next Fest. It made discovery and browsing difficult for many users (as there is no "AI/noAI" filter/tag on Steam), so something like this is definitely happening.

As for the AI harm, I referred to what is happening at both Sony and Microsoft:


"It's nixed PC from a discussion of its "business environment and strategy" in an annual report to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Even worse: it's replaced it with a great big paean to AI."



"The layoffs would mark the latest round of restructuring in the tech sector as companies continue to cut costs while directing more resources toward artificial intelligence (AI)."


"Leadership points to revenue margins to justify fighting us. And then this week they raised console prices on players for the third time since 2025. They are not short on money. Look at the billions that they're using to invest in AI. They're just choosing not to protect us."

I agree about the difficulty of filtering through AI slop. I took a brief skim through the steam sale and gave up because it required far too much curating. We definitely need a way to just filter out AI products. I think and hope that once AI's presence in the hobby is truly solidified, some kind of filtering will emerge. It has already happened in tabletop gaming.

The megacorps definitely aren't starving now, but they still are on a downward trend with console sales and engagement (across the board) since COVID. COVID set a precedent for the megacorps that they can't handle scaling back from. Their profits aren't coming from market engagement, but in frequent price hikes and labor cuts. That is what is bolstering their revenue margins. Their sales opportunities are slowly bleeding out and it is not likely to recover considering how AI is going to shape the economy in general. This is going to be a really big problem for the megacorps in the 2030s. That's the point where AI might start turning around financially and being a viable tool in some areas. At this point, it is a huge money sink and anyone involved in it (the AI developers and the companies utilizing it) are just hemorrhaging money they may not make back.

None of this is surprising to me. It's already projected that the console megacorps are going to circle their wagons around their IP and their hardware is a part of that. Dropping PC from the conversation might actually have some positive effects for consumers by further dichotomizing the hobby on an existential level (and pushing more slop into a category we can avoid). My memory is shady on this, but I vaguely recall this 'pull away from PC' narrative happening in the early days of the console wars, and I recall that backfiring immensely. However, if the console megacorps actually follow through with it, the console experience is going to be an expensive hardware option and gameplay ridden with ads, subcriptions, microtransactions, and paywalls. Meanwhile, the PC gaming experience will continue to exist through indie developers. We'll have to slosh through AI slop a bit (until a filtering meta is developed), but the gems we do find will be the kind of experiences we want in games.

This is already happening with tabletop. D&D isn't really growing with consumers. It's stable, but the increased profits are coming from shrinking costs, and those are mostly in the form of staff shrinking (layoffs and turnover) and the move to digital models (though some of those turned out to be a bad investment). Keep in mind, the fallout from going to a fully digital subscription service (which they have been discussing) hasn't even hit yet (it's expected to be bad). I mean Hasbro/WotC isn't going to fold over it, but every bad move has players shedding off D&D to other titles. Part of what is keeping them afloat current is revenue from licensing (once again, circling wagons around IP). They made around $90 million on the licensing for BG3, which is about three years of revenue from the actual D&D game.

I'm certainly not saying there isn't a rough road ahead with some unfortunate casualties along the way. But, quality spaces will still exist at a reasonable cost for consumers who really want them.

The silver lining (for me) is that the megacorp situation is going to consolodate a lot of slop which consumers can just ignore. This is the experience I currently have with tabletop. I can completely ignore Hasbro. It doesn't affect me or any game that I play (and I won't let my kids play Hasbro games). And, even in the indie scene, a lot of YT shills with their low-brow indie slop have been 'found out'. All of this was so much more a mess and a pain to filter through in the earlier days of self-publishing. But, the dust has settled, a lot of lines have been drawn, and I can just focus more on the actual games than wading through the culture of it. I think that is how it's going to land in video games, too.

My own dog is in a slightly different race. I don't care much about what happens to console gaming, as that's never been my interest, although it will eventually affect me if a company really doesn't publish a game I'm interested in for PC. (So far that hasn't happened.)

What I refuse to do is to buy an unfinished game in so-called "early access". I've seen a pattern emerge with several games I was interested in. They release an alpha-state unfinished game in "early access". Most of their target market buys the game and plays it to death, clamoring for more and more fixes and changes. Second, third, and fourth "acts" of the overall game campaign keep getting pushed back to later and later dates. Promised additional character classes and features may or may not ever appear.

The whole process goes on for more than a year, and sometimes for several entire years. Buzz begins to diminish and even die. By the time they release a finished product and call it "final release", there are few if any buyers left for the game. It becomes unprofitable for them to continue supporting the project.

So, by the time I would even consider buying their game, given that I refuse to buy an unfinished product based on promises and advertising buzz, it's already a dead game.

The most recent game I'm watching this happen to is "Heroes of Might and Magic: Olden Era." It should be a game I would have been interested in buying if it had been released as a finished product. Many months after its "early access", they still have an unfinished single-player campaign with only one act, (as of the last time I read about it), and I keep reading constant complaints about multiplayer game balance being the focus and people complaining that the AI is programmed clumsily with massive armies summoned from thin air by week three and steamrolling single players.

Despite this, the early access still has mostly positive reviews on Steam. I take these reviews as fueled by massive amounts of copium inhaled by people who wasted their money on an I.O.U.

Nevertheless, I think my dog is going to lose this race. The "Early Access" business model now looks like industry standard practice in PC gaming, and it appears from the outside looking in that there are too many people buying into it for them to want to stop. I mean, it's a win for them if they get all their money up front without even releasing a finished game and then close up shop and lay off all their staff. Meanwhile I think their customers are losing, and many don't even seem to realize it.

As I've said before, I will just keep playing my old classic retro games and be very content to do so.

As I've also said here before, I will continue to refuse to support games "released" under this business model, and will vote with my closed wallet, minority though I may be.

I can agree with the general sentiment around Early Access games (e.g., this is one of the reasons I haven't bought Solasta II), but I have a note to add about Olden Era.

It released on 30 Apr, 2026, which was 2 months ago, so today is definitely not "many months after". Before that, they had an alpha build they tested with invited people, that's a standard practice in game development, no matter whether the game goes the Early Access route or not. So that alpha feedback was used to change completely different aspects (from enemy AI): basic town look and feel, creature design, etc.

I think it's reasonable to be in month 2 of Early Access and still not have all single-player Acts. Their roadmap says AI tweaks will be part of the regular updates, while the full release will include all acts.

It's totally valid and fine you'd like to buy only a full game, and it would be fair to review and evaluate only the fully released version, how it will handle enemy AI for single-player, etc.

That said, the game we're talking about is an indie game that used a licence from Ubisoft and found another publisher later. In their core, they are a small team. Releasing in Early Access helped them recoup all the costs, and now they can invest more money into the game, with the aim of making it good for everyone, singleplayer fans included. We can make an assumption that without this Early Access release, the game wouldn't be that full anyway (as developers can simply run out of money). So it's not that black and white regarding the Early Access model.