The context appears to be mainly about how having to develop for different consoles/hardware configurations/etc makes development harder. So, choosing PC as the "platform" in this context would be the worst possible option to choose.
I’m okay with this on the condition that that platform is PC.
You want developers to choose a specific set of hardware requirements and only develop games to target and work on that specific set of hardware specifications?
Still, casual gamers did think Linux couldn’t game.
The parent comment is right. Most people don't think about Linux. Ask a 'casual' Swtich owner what OS the Switch uses, and their answer is probably going to be pretty close to the answer that a similar Deck user would give.
If the success of Baldur's Gate 3 shows that gamers don't like micro-transactions, does that mean games that sell well with micro-transactions is prove that gamers actually like them?
Just want to be clear on what the rules are for the logic here.
To summarize the actual tweets/comments/etc that these videos (there are multiple) are panicking about.
Smaller studios aren't going to be able to replicate the scale and complexity of BG3. So people shouldn't be using BG3 as the bar to compare future titles/RPGs from other studios going forward. Larian is comparable in size (or even larger) to Bethesda when they released Skyrim, and no one has been able to compete directly with Skyrim either.
Not all games and RPGs need to be as complex and long as BG3. Expecting open-ended, 100 hour-long RPGs for every future game/RPG isn't realistic. Not all games require that scope, it's rare to get such a budget for this type of game, and even if you did, most companies won't be able to replicate the game in a meaningful way. Just like how companies other than Rockstar would struggle to replicate the scale of games like GTA and RDR.
There, I've summarized multiple 20 min videos. Just without all the hand-waving and drama.