Sven_

I don't have 30 second load times on my entry-level SSD, I don't think I had those on an old HDD two years ago even, which is curious, but may be a thing depending on the setup (my computer in terms of hardware is pretty below average in general). That said, I think it's a bad decision to have no on/off toggle for auto-saves, as on every scene transition that auto-save is applied. In City hubs and similar that really adds up, as there are a lot of transitions going from one place to the next, even though the game is much smarter programmed in that sense than the first game in general. The first thing I did on Pathfinder Kingmaker was turning auto-save off. Plus, is or wasn't there something about performance scaling on higher end CPUs? There's still a big thread on Steam. https://steamcommunity.com/app/560130/discussions/0/2572002906843374108/

I've never used the AI, because on these games I'm a control freak. That said, this is just a personal Preference. I've enjoyed both PoEs. It's just that things have gotten bigger over the years (which oft applies to tabletop systems too). If I should make a comparison: Back then I'd much prefered Myth with its distinct but few types of units over any of those Command&Conquer clones that tried to beat the original at its own game by introducing ten times the amount of units (all of which a slight variation of one another). Eventually, there may come a point where you wonder how many shades of healing abilities do you need and how many gradually buffs to to-hit chances stacking on top of another? I'm the same in terms of itemization etc. too. Back on BG1 finding your first useful armor (wasn't even magical) was a moment to cherish. Now the supposedly "unique" stuff depending on the game can be all over the place, same as the inevitable level-up to reward the player at every opportunity. On Deadfire, you've barely escaped from Monkey, er, Tutorial Island and already went through that process a handful of times per character each. Eventually, if everything is supposedly some slightly differents kind of special -- nothing truly is. edit: That said, to bring that back on topic, going that approach of more and bigger should if at all be a boost to sales though.

Oh yeah, this was shortly adressed some also here… and in this Thumbs podcast AFAIR (be aware that the guys didn't seem to like PoE's combat in general. It's a more general gaming side, I found this interesting to listen to back then -- bit of a different perspective). edit: Yeah, it's at 19 minutes in https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/to-infinity-engine-and-beyond-1 Mind you, if you wanted to, you could focus on passive abilities in Deadfire entirelly. Not sure how that translates to the topic at hand. But, if you take a Closer look (and if Obsidian do one day), it's that Original Sin is a very different beast -- not merely in terms of Combat, but the entire focus of the game. Which is probably a reason why Larian find they have so much of an overlap with an audience of X-Com, perhaps moreso than other isometric RPGs (or PoE). PS: Sometimes I yearn for simpler times, actually. But that's just personal preference. There's lots of stuff that has crept into more traditional RPGs from MMOs imo, such as cool-downs and stuff (Tyranny), which I've much never liked myself as well. In an MMO you're just playing one character, that's fine. In party based games, your party basically is your character.

Currently playing DOS1. Does anybody know the Maths behind combat resolutions? The tool-tip suggests for instance that the DR from armor scales with enemy level. How exactly is nowhere displayed in-game, except that for enemies of your Level, x% of damage would be absorbed. Same as how saving throws against spell / ability effects are calculated. To-Hit-Chances. Anything. There's a combat log, but it doesn't go into very much detail.

Funny that you mentioned those, because you could actually import characters from both of those games. It is pretty much a German clone of those, but a bretty atmospheric one on A500's with 1megs RAM due to the environmental audio (wind, thunder, owls at night,...).

Back then I was this close on my Commodore 64 of picking up one of the Gold Box games in a shop -- but then I went with Hudson Hawk (the game) instead -- free Baseball cap inside. Eventually, it was this one (Amiga 500):

Is this realistic? I mean everybody keeps on doing console ports, so they must be some profitable. But did they really lift things to another level for Pillars Of Eternity before? As to the exact sales, the 110k estimate came forward roughly half a year past release. Pillars 1 had shipped ~500k in the first 7 months. We're now two years after the release of Deadfire, so some higher Steamspy estimates may naturally make some sense, in particular after several discounts. In Josh Sawyer's post mortem from June 2019 he talked about that Things had "worked out pretty well anyway." Suggesting that things in the end hadn't been a total desaster. In the context of that line he may have still meant something else rather than sales though. One thing is for sure, before they haven't analyzed why there was such a drop between PoE1 and 2, they may not move Forward with a possible 3rd game. Either that, or they wait until BG3 hits and becomes like the hottest thing, upon which they take an even closer look at the Larian approach.

If you count Tyranny into that, it's unfortunately been two very similar games "underperforming" as to their expectations (realistic or not) pretty much back-to-back. One game can always underperform for a variety of reasons: a tough release window, its main hook not being attractive to a larger audience, bad word of mouth, little exposure to the public, bugs, etc. But with two games like that, the format may be questioned. Though, as argued, apart of BG, no Infinity Engine game was ever a near million unit seller. BG was for the IE-style isometric subgenre of CRPGs what Football Manager is for sports management games --nothing comes quite close. Wondered about this elsewhere, but it would be interesting what eventually was more profitable for Obsidian, or how it all compares. The Outer Worlds, being a more traditionally funded game, or Pillars Of Eternity in general. Raw profits mind, not whatever boost the Kickstarter success did for Obsidian's exposure and reputation as a studio.

One thing that kept being argued prior to the Kickstarter in 2012 was that this specific Infinity-Engine style of game would have still have the player base, but that publishers didn't believe in it. And I'd argue most of the releases have proven that. Outside of Baldur's Gate, neither of those game shipped particularly large numbers. The core audience that staid for all the games was big enough so that a small/erish project such as Icewind Dale moved a decent units, but that's it. They've never sold in the million units range. They were still profitable, or else Interplay/Black Isle had never commited to doing yet another Icewind Dale in 2001 before they shut down. Brian Fargo too argued thathe would have been happy with if inXile's games could ship 200k units (minus backers). https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2013/04/03/brian-fargo-interview-torment-tides-of-numenera-kickstarter/#382497757ccd While I wouldn't mind if tactical, party based RPGs would eventually move to something slightly different from the IE style games to stay viable: Personally I think at least another game on the current tech would be pretty nice. If you discount the DLCs and add-ons back then, we'd have just as many games build on the Pillars "engine" (Unity tech) as the Infinity Engine (considering that inXile had used Obsidian's tech for Numenera). Agree that it's nice that Microsoft seems to support smaller projects just as well.

This arguably holds even more true for the first part, as there's less classes to pick. For all the refinements and streamlining made, interestingly in some aspects AD&D 2nd edition is actually simpler than what PoE/Tyranny have. This includes how damage is calculated, or what abilities you can pick. As I'd only ever played the Das Schwarz Auge (Realms Of Arkania) tabletop, my only contact prior to BG1 with D&D was from D&D computer games. Still, there's not a whole lot to chose neither on character creation nor on level up on BG. It's a case of Budgeting. There are smaller independent studios that would love for seeling a couple 100k Units. The question may be whether Obsidian would consider such a worthwile Investment. Apparently Josh Sawyer's current project consists of a handful of people at that time. It's likely not gonna be PoE related, but would be interesting if that stays that way.

IIRC the decision to do fully voice-over on Deadfire was in parts influenced by Larian, and was also made by upper management. They had higher expectations for Deadfire than for PoE1. I liked it, but for me it also isn't mandatory. Agree it's a cost-benefit thing. It seems "unfortunate" that Obsidian (just as Doublefine) are hailing from an area in which development in general is pretty expensive to begin with. Pathfinder Kingmaker was likely made for but a fraction of Deadfire's cost (or PoE1), and Wrath Of The Righteous is probably not gonna be much different. Back on the days of BG1, Bioware would have been happy with shipping 200k Units (which would have justified a sequel). Would be really interesting what was more profitable for Obsidian, btw. The Outer Worlds or Pillars Of Eternity (1). Much may depend on such a consideration. It's already been hinted at that in particular the management would really like to see a Pillars game that plays and looks a bit closer to Skyrim. AI, for instance. Not sure what Larian have in mind for BG3, but they have announced they make companions one of their focus. What I mean with AI is that, let's say you come up across this thief-like companion, and take him with you. He's great at what he can do, but you may have to consider. As at some points he may cause trouble, as he's a thief. He cannot keep his fingers off stuff… and upset NPCs as other party members alike. Or that Barbarian that cannot at all times control his thirst for blood, and may not always obey combat orders (depending on where he stands witht the main char). Basically, getting away from purely scripted interactions, to something that is more driven by AI. Just one possible direction.

I bought both Pillars 1+2 upon release, and enjoyed them and would be interested in a 3rd as well. Rather than wishing for something specific, I'd rather be surprised. People don't really know what they want until they play and get to know it. Less fussed about the format (isometric, RTwP, turn-based, whatever). However, it would be nice if PoE would retain its party-based tactical combat roots in some form, be it in the vein of the first two releases or otherwise. FPS and RPG have always made for an interesting mix (System Shock, Prey, Underworld, Bloodlines), but I think on the tactical front the Infinity Engine style games can't be the end to it all. For instance, there is very little interaction with the environment, and PoE takes this a step further by making a complete distinction between "combat" and "non-combat" scenarios. A lot of spells can only ever be triggered if the party is engaged, which means they all/mostly relate to combat to begin with, and in terms of environment interactions explosive barrels are as far as it goes. The environment outside of luring/cheesing opposition into choke points is also very undercooked, also in terms of encounter design. Anybody remember such simple scenarios as those orc archers in BG2 ambushing you from behind the melee protection of iron bars, which forced you to adapt some? I think the Larian marketing guy was arguing they had more of an overlap with X-Com players with Divinity anyhow, so there's still a place for more tactical experiences. They may not all look exactly like Baldur's Gate, but I'm of the opinion the truly next Baldur's Gate won't and can't look 100% exactly like Baldur's Gate to begin with. Without arguing that Pillars has been purely a retro retreat, mind. It's just that if you aim for a certain bar, that bar is going to be your limit. Plus, you know this dog and its tricks already. For instance, has anybody ever truly challenged since what companions in a game can be about, rather than following BG2's "Gold Standard" "companion quest, banter plus optional romance" formula? I'd be also fine with a comparably lower budget/scale affair though, just to see it all wrapped up. Kinda like how Icewind Dale was made / envisioned back in the day.

Interestingly, the relatively lack of options in AD&D made for an easier translation into real-time, the thing that Bioware back then did. What did Bioware do? Inspired largely by RTS games (mainly their own Warcraft sessions), which Combat had relatively straight Forward resolutions, going with the System now known as RtWP. So, whilst BG(1)'s combat is largely simplistic in comparison; I personally still prefer it over say the bulk of the combat in the recent Pathfinder Kingmaker. There's less depth for sure. Still on Pathfinder there's so much happening simultaneously, also on the opponent's end, that it's hard to get a feel for what really is turning the tides of battle. This inherently complexity naturally grows the higher level the encounter; as the amount of attack rolls resolved across the battle field multiply true to the source material; and opponents also tend to have/use more abilities. [I think it would be much better as a turn-based game, btw]. I'm still waiting for a RtWP game that would refute my Theory, but the more complex the mechanics, and the more Abstract the Combat Resolution (concentration checks on spellcasting; positioning triggering flanking conditions; checks on concealment/miss chances), the more you Strip real-time of ist inherent strength. Which is the more natural flow of Combat. IN D&D style Systems, it naturally doesn't help that unlike RTS truly, which are almost like rock-paper-scissor Affairs in comparison in their unit ability design; buffs/debuffs are oft ever stacking marginally increases to hit Chance, etc. which are hard to visualize and get a feel for -- and thus go against the inherent strength of simulating a more "natural flow" of battle itself. There's also a lot to be said about choice fatigue, but then I've always prefered Myth with its distinct Units/abilities over a Command&Conquer clone that back in the day tried to trump the original by providing hundreds of Units, each of which a slight Variation of the other. Whilst this is subjective; choices don't equal immersion. Whilst it is a wholly different game; the original Thief doesn't provide the player character with a gazillion of options and tools; but each of them have their use, and are meaningful. Actually, the entire game is still a masterclass in minimalism and is as much defined what the player can do, as well as the many things he -- as truly being a Thief -- cannot do. tldr; I actually think that not a single dev going with real-time combat these days fully understands where Bioware were coming from back then. At the very least, the difference in feel is enormous. An interesting podcast on this, I think. https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/to-infinity-engine-and-beyond-1

Re: Itemization and D&D 5e, sounds like they would definitely Change things here in particular. Games these days do their earnest to reward the player every five minutes or so, to hold his interest and Keep him into that loop. This naturally also ties in with the evolution of other entertainment. I personally think it's a shame, as if everything is special -- nothing is -- this goes for Obsidian's recent games also, btw. My personal tastes are admittedly hit the hardest by this, as I actually really like how the original Baldur's Gate went about this. I know that I was in a minority even way back then. Still, by modern standards Baldur's Gate 1 is almost an AD&D Survival Horror. Daddy's left you out in the wild -- you're weak, you're About to be eaten by a grue boar -- and half that fairly average stuff you find can even break.

At best Larian should just focus on making a good game. However, given their strong personal Preference towards TB Combat (similar to Obsidian's main System Designers...), they would probably make a better focused TB combat system than a real-time one. But who knows, maybe they would even fix some of the remaining annoyances in nu-RtWP, or give the idea of real-time Party Combat a different spin. Prior to Original Sin, the only viable way of going TB seemed to ape X-Com style combat, such as Wastleand 2 or Shadowrun did, after all. The more options and diversity, the better if you ask me. If this would come to pass, Larian would likely also get in touch with writers who've already written for D&D games. Prior to Original Sin 2, they've treated story beats at times as an afterthought, as their focus and interest was something else. They've only very recently ramped up their writing staff. Their system driven approach to aping the freedom found in a pen&paper session crossed with D&D may make for some interesting stuff either way… of which you won't find overly much in a traditional IE style game, as the IE games are more "static" than the games that Larian are usually inspired by. As much as I love to replay it: The next Baldur's Gate won't look 100% like Baldur's Gate, as we all know all of its tricks inside out, and aren't surprised anymore by them the way we used to. Curious how a hopefully well made game carrying the D&D/BG licenses would commercially pan out too, given the audiences Larian managed to attract with their own IP. It may be the one shot at showing the gaming world that there's lots of people out there who would love to play that kind of game in one form or the other anyhow. Then again, they could also mess it up and roll a critical miss.

Bringing up RTS is a good idea, because I don't think the wave of nu-RTwP games (or rather ist developers) understand RTS as much as Bioware did back in the day (and the compromises needed to make it "work"). Bioware held regular Office tournaments of Warcraft 2, whilst the Folks at Obsidian Play or Owlcat Play tabletop at their Offices (Owlcat are doing right now reportedly in preparation to their Kingmaker Sequel, good game btw). In other words, Bioware back then understood the Format they tried to adapt to, whilst the newer wave of developers try to cram stuff into a Format that they perceived was Baldur's Gate. That's what at times it feels like anyway -- and to me it also seems apparent how various System Designers at Obsidian prefer TB combat from the go. There's lots of Combat I like, but at its worst and busy it's really the worst of both Worlds. I couldn't see any of these games becoming a spectator Sport as Starcraft / Warcraft has become (not that they try to, but this affects the Players playing as well). Because depending on the complexity of the Encounter, it is really hard to tell what is going on; and on a strategy Level, for the Player get a feel of what shifted the tides of battle. Mechanically, it's sometimes just too much. The more frustrating Thing then is that the games encourage you to dig deeper into a mechanical Level -- but if you do, say by following the Combat log, it becomes a total slog. F'r instance, on Kingmaker when battling the Staglord (quite a Grand in scope Encounter), I buffed my Party with various spells, and also potions (amongst others Blur -- granting a 20% Chance of the Opponent missing). There was so much going on during the battle that I had to traverse through pages and pages of battle log AFTER the Combat to get somewhat of a feel of how often this had actually happened. (Just because the potion Gifts a 20% Chance, doesn't mean that every fifth Opposition attack went "missing" during that Combat -- random Chance, Regression to the mean and all that, which apparently even testers of These Things don't understand). Add in the (true to the source material) various conditions and additionally hidden checks that could trigger Attacks Of Opportunity / free attacks which can multiply later on, and which Bioware never implemented from 2nd Edition AD&D, and there you go. (Which btw, are also fairly "Abstract" mechanics of Encounter resolution, whilst real-time goes with a more natural flow of Combat). I personally happen to think that Bioware didn't for reason, but yeah. Likewise, compared to an RTS like Warcraft 2/3, which in comparison can be a bit more rock, paper scissory as you face the same Units over and over which also have a specific type of use, "modern" RPGs Systems multiply not only each "Units" abilities, but also add more of those that aren't even visualized. Combat Resolution is a fairly more complex affair in General, as the Units in an RTS you maybe can upgrade a Little, but only this far, and that's that. Reducing Party sizes (Tyranny / Deadfire) as well as slowing down Combat or changing encounter design only works around the limitations rather than adressing them. Everything is still going to happen simultaneously. Maybe it's my personal bias due to some of my playing experience with the newer games (I had replayed BG 1 and IWD just a while ago), but I think the demand/complaining About RtWP weren't as big if the devs understood the strengths and weakness of going real-time a tad better. To put it like this Player does: "We'll just Keep spamming everything we got" indeed. (Which on Deadfire you can do anyway without worrying an Inch, as ressource or rather spell/ability Management is barely existent). This is an interesting podcast from apparently non-harcore Infinity Engine Players, btw. https://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/topic/12093-episode-436-to-infinity-engine-and-beyond/

I think a key misconception in terms of RtWP Combat is how it's "evolved" since. Bioware back then were heavily inspired by RTS games of the day -- Warcraft 2 in particular, which they Held tournaments in the Office. They also actually cut various Corners when translating AD&D rules (in itself in many ways as argued way more simple than lots of "modern" systems since) into that inherently real-time Environment -- with all characters eventually all acting out at once, and attack rolls et all being resolved simultaneously. Some of PoE/2 feels like it was actually meant to be a TB game from the go, and certainly several key system Designers have already voiced their preferences towards TB. That's not the Right way to Approach the RtWP "conundrum". Given that even the more hardcore can find Combat resolutions a tad "cluster****y" depending on the Encounter (I do and dub it the "Where did this Status effect suddenly come from" effect), it makes you wonder how the General audience would respond. I'm curious how Pathfinder may pan out in the late game, but given the plenty of stuff at Play, including multiple attacks of opporunity per round, AOEs, CC abilities, and attack bonuses gifting each character multiple attacks per "round" later on; the Combat log may implode depending on the Encounter design, and not merely that. (It's a good game, btw. Could turn into my favourite of the "nu" RtWP wave actually -- on Occasion despite it being RT, rather than because of it).

Whilst I agree that both TB and RtwP are too different from one another that both should be shoe-horned into a design; I've also come to the conclusion that some inherently AD&D2ish traits suited RtwP a lot more than what's being on offered in RtwP games These days. Aside of the at times cacophony of spells/abilities and generally rolls being resolved  simulataneously; translating AD&D2 to a real-time Party based Environment was Always going to work better as outside of casters, Managing Chars was an inherently less Micro-heavy affair as in D&D3ish onwards, let alone PoE Deadfire (or Tyranny, with ist cooldowns to be tracked and reactivated). The one thing I'm glad About isn't so much that Deadfire gets a TB patch that resources should or shouldn't have been spend on, as the core game/Encounters where balanced for real-time combat. It's also not so much that People seem to come to Terms with RtwP's many strenghts -- but also its weaknesses. It's that TB Combat for future Projects/IPs may be considered as a viable choice next to real-time again, based on the design, as opposed to Marketing future predictions based on invetiably rather fewer (and smaller scale) games such as ToEE, so that the prediction becomes a self-fullfilling Prophecy, with nobody actually challenging things anymore. Well, at least that's I hope, anyway.

About the "14 million" cost. In the aforementioned interview, Faergus estimated a rise in costs from the first game by about 40%-50%. That was February 2017, probably before the inclusion of fully VO. PoE wasn't financed solely by the Kickstarter money alone, same as any Kickstarter, so a ~10M Budget is not off.

Auto-pause seems to be triggered outside of combat as well, e.g. City Exploration and NPCs, at least on mine. Trying to demand this to be turn-based is pointless, both real-time and TB have their merits. Though I'd argue quite a few mechanics come from a tb mould rather than a real-time one readily -- more so than in the IE games. If given the freedom, I have a suspicious Sawyer and co. would have opted for something more TB, be it traditional or something similar to older Final Fantasy games with their active time battles. This extents to other areas as well -- IE games were class based, so class based this is going to be -- except not quite like you knew those classes before. That may be my perception bias after having followed dev statements, but I think compromise shows in multiple areas. The Overall Combat as such flows pretty nicely, it's when you try to get into the mechanically nitty-gritty that things get a bit more complicated thus. This starts with fairly simple things -- all damage indicators being of the same colour in the main screen, friend or foe. No immediate easy feedback as to whether hits crit. etc. But also the new affliction/inspiration system: There's modders that try to make it a little more transparent with quite simple overhauls. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100337-mod-release-color-coded-afflictions-and-inspirations/

I initially liked that feature in Tyranny, but I've since taken a different stance. If dialogue needs a Wiki hyperlink, it may fall under what is considered "lore dumping". E.g. if you don't get from playing the game what the meaning of a phrase is, the thing to address may be the writing (and design), rather than adding a second layer that explains everything. In particular when designing expansive new worlds, perhaps even language, but also rule-sets, it seems tempting to go overboard here. This bleeds over into other areas as well: Item and spell design, etc. -- each one given its distinctive name and story, and the more the merrier, apparently. A computer RPG is not a tabletop system that players get to know over years of playing. It's typically a standalone piece of campaign narrative, which is a huge difference. Does one really need to know about the world at large here, and can't be keeping things ambiguous and up to the player's imagination such as Thief's The City be undervalued here? That said though, I am a fan of in-game encyclopedia that explains various things optionally for anbybody who loves to get a bit deeper into it. This dates all the way back to the very first Civ game -- and various game manuals of old. The TES games also have quite a bit of lore, but it's implemented in the form of books mainly. Granted, isometric games have a bit of a harder time in showing rather than telling.

Re: Tyranny / Deadfire and expectations. https://www.mcvuk.com/business/versus-evil-obsidian-is-one-of-the-top-tier-rpg-developers-plain-and-simple A Pillars 3 was sort of announced by Faergus a while ago if Deadfire was a "success" aka "meeting expectations". The decision to include fully VO as well as various other overhauls hint at that the target is trying to expand the audience, overall.

Unfortunately, for mid-sized independent studios, California in particular seems to be one of the most difficult areas to be based in here (costs of living and upkeep, etc.). This also goes for Double Fine -- when Broken Age launched, there were various European developers voicing how they'd (need to) develop similar scaled adventure games on a fraction of that budget. So 10M for Witcher 2 developed in Poland is something else completely to the same game developed in, say, San Fran.

No matter if failure or success: In an oustanding twist of narrative, at least nobody is going to say "turn based doesn't sell" anymore, so go real-time action (with or without pause) by publisher prressure and default. I enjoy all "renaissance" Infininty Engine style games Obsidian has made. But at times they also act as a reminder that in particular if you aim for a certain level of complexity and micro management (much more abilities than in any of the IE games not only for own characters but also foes), it's compromise. The entire concept back then minus the pause button was borrowed straight from the RTS genre, btw. An actual former blockbuster genre that, in another outstanding twist of narrative, has a bit of a harder time these days. With bonafide industry stalwarts such as Command&Conquer being put on indefinite hiatus -- and Warcraft not having seen a strategy game in borderline two decades. Meanwhile, X-Com is alive and kicking truly. [For the record, it's a bit simplistic to narrow things down to a specific aspect, like RTWP. There's RTWP and then there's RTWP anyway. I had the first BG installed on my HD just a few months ago again. Quite a different game in how it plays overall.]

There's no speed slider that would make things much less "chaotic" as such. In parts the transition of inherently turn-based (A)D&D mechanics into the IE games worked better as their mechanics were different. Starting with that not every class had a lot of abilities, and/or was able to inflict various status effects on opponets, changing from one second to the next and piling up on each char as they do so. I personally think the more you add to this, the better something is suited to turn based. The prospect was developing an "IE style game", but the real time with pause aspect (which is fine in itself) is but one part of it (see above). I think there's roughly two kind of players, which will impact your experience. 1) Those that simply enjoy fluid combat 2) Those that may enjoy such too, but still want to have an easy grasp of what is mechanically actually happening at any second The folks falling under category 2 may find it a bit more of a struggle to adjust, as there's lots more going on than in any IE game (the same applied for PoE1 and Tyranny already). I just had a really busy fight in a dungeon, and whilst there was no need to --- trying to follow what was going on was tough and made pausing to check the combat log mandatory at every turn. That said, the inclusion of speed sliders is still a big benefit.