• 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by MarkM (288 posts) -

I'm starting to feel like it may actually be a good thing for the industry.

AAA games usually have high budgets because of increasingly larger open worlds and shitty single player campaigns for what are primarily multiplayer games.

It just becomes a problem of staffing. You end up needing so much expensive talent to produce these lofty goals....

If the AAA model collapses and becomes unprofitable, shouldn't we just let that run its course and start fresh?

Indie game developers are eventually going to oversee 1- 2 million dollar projects. A massive leap from what they work with now. On the other end, AAA studios are requiring 25mil + just to get a project going.

The fatal flaw for AAA is that design and innovation are not expensive. Art assets and technology is what costs so much.

So while huge budget $70.00 games will look awesome. They will be equally as fun as a $15 game that cost 2 million to make.

Video games are getting to the point where the resources required for a modern AAA shooter are so vast and expensive that it is no longer becoming profitable even if the game is popular.

#2 Posted by oraknabo (1453 posts) -

I think the current model with annualized franchises is going to crash terribly within 5 years if they don't change course. I still appreciate the kinds of things Ubisoft are still trying to do occasionally though they have completely buried my interest in Assassin's Creed and I've pretty much had it with EA and Activision and don't see myself buying anything from either for a while.

As much as I would still enjoy playing indie games, I'd miss the bigger, more ambitious games. I'm still interested in most of what comes out from Bethesda, Capcom, Konami and Square Enix. If I end up with a PS4, I'm looking forward to a lot of interesting stuff from Sony in the next gen too. I'm still excited about the games coming out from publishers this size, but I suppose they could all go the way of THQ even without EA and Activision's bad practices.

#3 Posted by Hunkulese (2642 posts) -

Your argument may make sense if it wasn't for the fact that the majority of AAA games are single player focused with the occasional tacked in multiplayer. So I guess you're not really saying anything.

#4 Edited by NoobSauceG7 (1232 posts) -

I would care

#5 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2133 posts) -

If the industry cannot support these giant budgets without infringing upon our rights, then budgets need to be lower.

#6 Edited by SomeJerk (3140 posts) -

Since AAA in nine out of ten cases means pile of shit that sells like a hollywood blockbuster and gets shat upon universally, sure.

#7 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

As long as I get my Dark Souls 2, I'm fine.

#8 Posted by Hunter5024 (5538 posts) -

I like them, but I think there could stand to be fewer of them.

#9 Posted by kishinfoulux (2253 posts) -

So you'd just wanna play indie crap all the time? No thanks. AAA games are important, and most importantly, fun. That's why I come to gaming. I love this notion that all blockbuster games are shit, but indie games are always amazing. Yeah no.

#10 Posted by Chop (1994 posts) -

Yes. I pretty much only play AAA games these days.

Come at me.

#11 Edited by 9cupsoftea (652 posts) -

No, I wouldn't care. So long as you don't include the Portal series in AAA.

#13 Posted by Draugen (628 posts) -

Yup, I'd probably be done with gaming. I play indies and such for variety, but the bulk of my gaming happens with AAA. I needs my big, overblown narratives, dangit.

#14 Posted by YOU_DIED (702 posts) -

@azteck said:

As long as I get my Dark Souls 2, I'm fine.

Same. Seems like there's something for everyone right now.

#15 Edited by Dallas_Raines (2133 posts) -

@kishinfoulux: No one's saying that great blockbuster games don't come out every year, it's more the fact that the "AAA" model is rapidly become unsustainable, what with all the massive layoffs and studio closures.

If you're okay with getting rid of rentals, used games and proper ownership for the sake of more scripted set pieces in your white man kills brown man shooter, then buy an Xbox One.

#16 Posted by wrecks (2210 posts) -

Yes, I would care. Some of my favorite and most memorable gaming moments are from "AAA" games.

#17 Posted by Alexander (1721 posts) -

This isn't a case of there needing to be less of one so there can be more of the other. There is more choice than ever and that's a good thing.

#18 Edited by Veektarius (4585 posts) -

I believe that games that are currently made for huge budgets would still be playable with slightly reduced production values, but I would notice and care.

#19 Posted by Carryboy (630 posts) -

If triple a games died the industry as we know it would die and all that would be left is mobile games and perhaps indy games on steam.

#20 Edited by cool8man (28 posts) -

Uh yeah I think most people would care. If there was no more Final Fantasy, Halo, Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, Assassin's Creed, Watchdogs, GTA, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. there would be millions upon millions of consumers who would be upset.

You think big budget games don't matter? Great, put your money where your mouth is and get an OUYA instead of an Xbox or Playstation.

This is absolutely crazy talk to think the industry is better off without big budget marquee titles. And it's so silly to think that indie developers aren't going to end up ballooning their budgets with each successive hit game. Look at the difference between Braid and the Witness. The art assets and production going into the Witness have to be far far above whatever was spent on Braid.

All I see are a bunch of opportunistic and idealistic indie developers who want to disrupt the market and take control. And when they do they will little by little "sell out" and start catering to the desires of the mainstream consumers.

#21 Posted by phantomzxro (1565 posts) -

Yeah would have a problem with that, there is room for every type of game. We don't need to kill one to make the other better, we can have are big games and are cooler smaller games.

#22 Posted by EchoEcho (815 posts) -

Many of my favorite games are AAA, so yeah, I'd care. I think you are ignoring a large swatch of AAA games when you reduce them to "shitty single player campaigns for multiplayer titles."

#23 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1518 posts) -

I'm not sure what "AAA" even means here, or anywhere. Will Zelda for Wii U be "AAA"? Is Final Fantasy XV "AAA"? Were Dishonoured, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, or Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon "AAA"? If you're defining "AAA" as "not indie", then yes, I would care a lot if they were gone. If you're defining "AAA" as "high-budget shooter with multiplayer", I suppose I could live without them, but many of them make tons of money, and will continue to.

Many of the most acclaimed games of the last generation were "AAA": Uncharted 2, BioShock, Half-Life 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Mass Effect 2, Portal 2, MGS 4, Gears of War, Skyrim, and yes, even Modern Warfare 2. This gaming hipster meme that only small studios produce interesting, high-quality games is getting old.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but many "indie" developers are already overseeing projects worth a lot more than $1m. Maybe not in on-the-books budget -- though you might be surprised -- but certainly in the value of the human resources involved.

Online
#24 Posted by BaneFireLord (2909 posts) -

Assuming by AAA you are referring to $60 games from major publishers, I would care, definitely. I'm a sucker for pretty graphics and huge production values and polish. Indie games are fine and dandy for storytelling and experimental mechanics, but an industry dominated by quirky 2D platformers and heavy emotional stories conveyed by pixel art is not something I want to be a part of. It's like if the film industry was suddenly dominated by art house pictures and low budget dramedies; that's fine to an extent, but I still want to go see good popcorn action flicks.

#25 Posted by TobbRobb (4579 posts) -

I very rarely get what I want from the absolute highest tiers of budget, so cutting down the roof and normalizing the system is fine by me. Mid tier budgets have more freedom to test things, or do what they want while still preserving some amount of production value. I'd like bigger studios more around that area.

#26 Posted by Aleryn (703 posts) -

Wouldn't care since I mostly play smaller budget games any more.

#27 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10468 posts) -

AAA games tend to be the ones I like the most, because I like spectacle and big games, so yes, I would care.

#28 Posted by ThePickle (4153 posts) -

Yes. Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and Grand Theft Auto are three franchises that keep me interested in video games.

#29 Posted by adam1808 (1372 posts) -

Yes. I love so much of what the indie scene puts out but that stuff is something I play to counterpoint my playing of huge, big budget games. AAA gets maligned by people who want gaming to mature faster than it's maturing and can't deal with the big, the brash and dumb because they have an idea about what gaming "should" be. Of course the big-budget games have their problems, but I'd be a whole lot less interested in games if they weren't around.

#30 Edited by Nadril (523 posts) -

Depends what you consider "AAA" games. Like, would you consider something such as "Dark souls II" or a Valve game an AAA game? (I would assume so).

I love indie games as much as anyone, but there are some AAA companies out there that I absolutely adore and would be very sad if they no longer made big budget games. So yes, I would care.

#31 Edited by colinjw (216 posts) -

I think that it would be a problem if AAA games did go away. A lot of the money and the influence of the games industry comes from companies that make AAA games. This has allowed games to become a protected art form and helped at a governmental level.

The AAA game has also become a cultural touch point that pulls in people to games that have no wish to play any of the smaller games. When you hear about friends and family members talking about how they play online over long distances they normally do so on AAA games.

I think that due to the large amounts of people that play these games and the fact that they are a talking point with so many people means that they can be used in effective ways for people with disabilities that are not able to deal with some of the psychological aspects of others treating them differently than everyone else. Not having to explain to others what is wrong with you and just play and converse with others is worth keeping AAA games around for.

#32 Edited by ericdrum (404 posts) -

I want variety. I want big games, I want small games. All indie games and small budget games would bore me. I play PC, Xbox and PS and a tiny bit on my phone.

#33 Posted by CaLe (3910 posts) -

I would probably stop playing games if that happened.

#34 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

Yeah I'd care. At least half the games I play are AAA, and the other half are Nintendo haha

#35 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2562 posts) -

If this is about the Jim Sterling editorial than I would say this, Jim is not saying not to make Triple A games, he is saying, "Look at you budgets when you do."

What people forget is Triple-A isn't a thing, it is merely 'a concept' that means a publisher's maximum effort. There are no "Triple-A" board of governors to says 'this is' or 'this isn't' maximum effort. Journey is an AAA title, Call of Duty Black Ops 2 is an AAA title, and even Fez is a AAA effort....they are all the MAXIMUM OUTPUT of a studio. There will never be a time when the industry isn't putting out Triple A titles.

Asking "What if there were no Triple-A titles" would be asking "What if nobody did their jobs at all, and what they still shipped games?" The answer to that questions is "What the hell are you talking about? Are, you currently drunk?"

#36 Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2495 posts) -

... I just finished downloading The Last of Us.

So yes. I would care.

#37 Edited by Pr1mus (3807 posts) -

AAA development is the industry's equivalent to natural selection. The stupid devs/publishers will disappear and the smart devs/publishers will prosper.

If you sell 3.4 millions copies of your game in one month (Tomb Raider), counting only retail copies and call this a disappointment, A - your expectations were out of hand, B - you are terrible at adequately managing your business.

Take CD Projekt Red. They developed The Witcher 2, one of the best looking game of all time, gave a ton of additional content for free, are moving on with an even more ambitious game and they were stoked they sold a million copies of that game. That was a huge success for them and somehow enough to fund development of one of the best looking game available and move forward with a bigger sequel.

AAA games will not disappear. Poorly managed AAA development will.

#38 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

I feel like all of these terms are basically meaningless. What you're really talking about are games which are expensive to produce and games which are cheap to produce. There will always be some of each. Some in each category will succeed and others won't.

Also, that 'expensive talent' you're talking about is only expensive as long as the market holds up. If it starts to collapse, that talent becomes less valuable and games become cheaper to produce again; so game quality should be pretty resilient in that sense. They'll also figure out processes and technology for making a better product at a lower cost too, as all industries do. We aren't at the pinnacle of interactive entertainment or anything like that. Some games failing to make a profit doesn't mean the model is inherently unviable.

#39 Edited by believer258 (11629 posts) -

I don't want them to disappear. I want companies to reign in their budgets and take a look at why they cost so much, and stop fucking throwing money at something with the hope that it will make it popular. That does not work. Talent works.

Indie games and smaller games cannot yet create worlds like Mass Effect's or Dead Space's or Red Dead Redemption's nor can it create something as fun to play as Tomb Raider or Halo or, yes, even Call of Duty (all of which have great single player campaigns, by the way). Imagine a next generation without any Battlefields, Bioshocks, Forzas, Killzones, Ratchet and Clanks, Arkham Asylums, Sleeping Dogs, or Max Payne 3s.

Yes, the gaming industry needs far better management of budgets and time. The gaming industry does not need to lose AAA games.

#40 Edited by EXTomar (4494 posts) -

I would.

The issue isn't "AAA Games" but that too many producers think every single game needs 100+ people with a $200M budget or it isn't worth the time.

#41 Edited by Mastercheesey (219 posts) -

Considering most of the games I play are AAA, yes.

#42 Edited by Grimluck343 (1148 posts) -

Since that would mean no more Elder Scrolls, Saints Row, Bioshock, Uncharted, Halo, Mass Effect, Forza, Gran Turismo, Gears of War, inFamous, Resistance, Killzone, Resident Evil, Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, Assassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Batman Arkham, Fallout, Street Fighter, Madden, NBA2K, FIFA, Dead Space, XCom, Metal Gear, Borderlands, Castlevania, Dark Souls, Mortal Kombat, The Witcher, Battlefield, Tomb Raider, Civilization, Persona, Tom Clancy games, Unreal Tournment, Left 4 Dead, Half Life, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Crysis, Ninja Gaiden, The Darkness, Mirror's Edge, World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, Devil May Cry, etc?

Yeah, I would care.

By "AAA" did you really just mean "Call of Duty?"

#43 Edited by MarkM (288 posts) -

Bring back B tier games!

Guys, don't you understand what kind of crazy shit can be attempted in B tier????

Where is the modern, western equivalent of Katamari Damacy?

I would like to play a game where you're a drug dealer and you sell drugs to make money. Think Dope Wars, 3D over head view, a simple GTA clone. Are you telling me you wouldn't play this game if it had a 4 million dollar budget? I'd kickstart that right now.

Now imagine if you took the entire studio floor working on Assasins Creed and instead of making 1 big AAA action game, they made 5 games.

That's 5 potential awesome games for 1 AAA. There I just figured out the math literally as I'm typing this. 5:1 boom.

For every AAA game you are losing 5 awesome games that don't have mocap cutscenes...

#44 Posted by bellmont42 (317 posts) -

I don't have much interest in AAA games anymore unless they provide some kind of compelling multiplayer or great story. Lower budget games and indie games tend to try to include more unique systems for gameplay instead of big action sequences and amazing graphics... which are fine.... except when every AAA game from every developer feels like every other game in its genre.

#45 Posted by TheHT (10876 posts) -

We should really stop using "AAA" as a replacement for "big budget".

Yes, I would miss big budget games.

#46 Edited by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

Most of my gaming hours are spent on big budget games. While I enjoy futzing around with indie games they simply can't keep my interest for long periods of time. That said I do wish there was more diversity among big budget games and most just weren't the same thing. And I do miss that mid level game. Also I wonder a lot of times what kind of games these indie developers could come up with if they were given a good size budget.

#47 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5221 posts) -

I personally like moving back and forth between big budget and small creative indie games. So yes, I would care.

#48 Edited by triple07 (1196 posts) -

I would probably stop playing games if there were no AAA games so, yes I would. Indie games are interesting but rarely meaty enough for me to enjoy for long.

#49 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@markm said:

I'm starting to feel like it may actually be a good thing for the industry.

AAA games usually have high budgets because of increasingly larger open worlds and shitty single player campaigns for what are primarily multiplayer games.

It just becomes a problem of staffing. You end up needing so much expensive talent to produce these lofty goals....

If the AAA model collapses and becomes unprofitable, shouldn't we just let that run its course and start fresh?

Indie game developers are eventually going to oversee 1- 2 million dollar projects. A massive leap from what they work with now. On the other end, AAA studios are requiring 25mil + just to get a project going.

The fatal flaw for AAA is that design and innovation are not expensive. Art assets and technology is what costs so much.

So while huge budget $70.00 games will look awesome. They will be equally as fun as a $15 game that cost 2 million to make.

Video games are getting to the point where the resources required for a modern AAA shooter are so vast and expensive that it is no longer becoming profitable even if the game is popular.

Just so long as I could still play my Elder Scrolls/Fallout games... I absolutely think AAA games need to go away. They're almost universally terrible.

#50 Edited by Cold_Wolven (2210 posts) -

Yes because indie games can't provide me the same experiences that big development studios like Rockstar and Naughty Dog can provide.