AAA Games -- are they becoming more and more irrelevant?

[wongojack | 220]

Answered "Neutral" for myself, but they are massively relevant to the industry.  72% of revenue is enough evidence of that.

 

I like to make time for the single player AAA games, but that's not where the money is.  These companies know they will make $$$ by keeping tweens online chatting to their friends.  The gameplay doesn't even really matter for a lot of the players (see Fortnight).  I don't play any games where 80-99% of the content is online multi-player.  I usually just skip them entirely unless I find a sale for like less than $3 or something.  Just does not appeal to me.  However, I am very interested in the games listed by @a3quit4s, but I still don't play them when they are new.  I usually wait until they drop to half price which often doesn't take long since only us old farts keep playing those single-player games anyway.

Oh and I will want to get "Elf Boy" too - eventually.

 

2 hours ago, a3quit4s said:

I probably spend most of my gaming time playing AAA titles for this generation so they are still very important to me. I don’t know that I really keep track of all them besides the ones I was really interested in. Recent examples RE4 remake, hogwarts legacy, GoW Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West. I’m generally suspicious of new IP I guess because you never know how it’s going to go. I’ll wait for reviews on those lol

Although I was all in on CyberPunk and had it on XSX on launch day and it was a fantastic experience. 
 

People also get way to hyped when they see a trailer for a new game that doesn’t even have actual gameplay footage in it. You might as well be getting hyped for a new movie, not a game. 

 

[Tulpa | 3,529]

Just came to post that if anyone refers to a AAA game as a "blue chip" game, they smell their own farts.

 

 

My tastes lately go more indie stuff.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

19 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

"blue chip"

[avatar! | 1,826]

3 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Raise you one casino!

[avatar! | 1,826]

Based upon the poll results as of May 10, it looks like 80% of voters either say "neutral" or "very meh" -- granted this poll is not exactly scientific in nature and results may certainly change as more people vote, but nevertheless I think it's telling of the direction the industry is heading. Sure, right now 70% of revenues on Steam are still generated by AAA games, but as I pointed out previously, just a few decades ago 100% of revenue was from big-budget games. In 20-some years, big studios saw their revenue percentages decline by nearly 1/3... they should absolutely be paying attention. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,569]

6 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Based upon the poll results as of May 10, it looks like 80% of voters either say "neutral" or "very meh" -- granted this poll is not exactly scientific in nature and results may certainly change as more people vote, but nevertheless I think it's telling of the direction the industry is heading. Sure, right now 70% of revenues on Steam are still generated by AAA games, but as I pointed out previously, just a few decades ago 100% of revenue was from big-budget games. In 20-some years, big studios saw their revenue percentages decline by nearly 1/3... they should absolutely be paying attention. 

I think it's definitely valid to say the Indy scene has really blossomed.  Once upon a time it was Cave Story and Isaac.  Nowadays you're constantly hearing about the latest and greatest killer app.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,569]

By the way, here is the roughdraft list of my backlog plan for 2024.  I made this a month ago.

These are the games I most want to get around to playing, regardless of platform, budget, AAA-ness, or anything else.  I don't care what the story or background is, I just want to have fun.

I'd say it's a healthy mix of of all of the above:

1. Metal Gear - NES
2. Thousand Year Door - Cube
3. Twilight Princess - Cube
4. Gradius V - PS2
5. Shattered Soldier - PS2
6. Bravely Default - 3DS
7. Trails in the Sky 2 - ??
8. Dragon's Dogma - Switch
9. Hyper Light Drifter - Switch
10. Ninja Gaiden (remake) - Switch
11. Black Flag - Switch
12. La Mulana - Switch
13. Witcher III - Switch
14. Dragon Quest XI - Switch
15. Stanley Parable - Switch
16. Danganronpa 2 - Switch
17. Mario Rabbids - Switch
18. The Witness - PS4
19. Dark Souls III - PS4
20. Bloodborne - PS4
21. Talos Principle - PS4
22. Yakuza 2 - PS4
23. Shenmue 2 - PS4
24. Dishonored 2 - PS4
25. Horizon Zero - PS4
26. Resident Evil Village - PS5
27. Nioh 2 - PS5
28. Lost Legacy - PS5
29. Death Stranding - PS5
30. Everspace 2 - PS5

[Estil | 1,265]

I'm confused, aren't "AAA games" (or blue chips as I like to call them) supposed to be among the best games the console has to offer?  The ones that are supposed to go down in gaming history?  Otherwise wouldn't they be AA, A, B, C...?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,569]

26 minutes ago, Estil said:

I'm confused, aren't "AAA games" (or blue chips as I like to call them) supposed to be among the best games the console has to offer?  The ones that are supposed to go down in gaming history?  Otherwise wouldn't they be AA, A, B, C...?

It's synonymous with tentpole movies.  Big high budget titles that the major studios are sinking time and money into.  Whereas one-man operations can produce games like Stardew Valley or Baba is You.  Both can be good, and "go down in history", in different ways.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,017]

AAA games definitely impact the gaming landscape more than indies. I don't have many hours to game so I cant comb through indie titles to find the gems. I noticed the ones that make it out like Hollowknight and Cuphead but otherwise they're just noise.

[avatar! | 1,826]

45 minutes ago, Estil said:

I'm confused, aren't "AAA games" (or blue chips as I like to call them) supposed to be among the best games the console has to offer?  The ones that are supposed to go down in gaming history?  Otherwise wouldn't they be AA, A, B, C...?

As @Gloves  and others have noted, and I quote directly -

"AAA/Triple A means exactly that, according to basically all sources - there's no promise of quality, it only means that the game was developed by a mid to large sized company, and was backed by a huge budget."

Large studios like to use the term "AAA" because many do think it means "quality", but it absolutely does not. Just see Redfall as the latest example of a large-budget game gone horribly wrong.

[a3quit4s | 4,124]

I always thought of AAA coming from a big well known studio as well. Obviously the budget has to be there but a well known studio that has put out a great game or two certainly has earned the hype. I feel like the hype has just become to easy to earn without much backing; like the comment I made before about people getting hyped up over a trailer that has no actual gameplay. 

[Sumez | 2,986]

23 hours ago, Brickman said:

There's a lot of people here that are into indies. I've listed 5 above, I know @Reed Rothchild, @Sumez and @DoctorEncore are also big into indies. We talk about them quiet a bit in the backlog challenge/what are you playing thread. You should join in.

Funny thing is, I'm not really "into indies" at all. Of course it pretty much goes into what you were already saying, but I'm just into video games, and there are a lot more indie video games nowadays than there were in the past - and a lot of them are really good, just like a lot of them are most likely awful trash. I just try to play what looks fun.

Just like I don't really care if a game is new or old, I think those sorts of arbitrary distinctions about what games you play don't really serve any purpose.

I'll admit though, that the more "triple A" the industry gets, the less interested I typically am in those games. Not because of the budget itself or any of the strict AAA traits, but because those massive bloated budgets also usually comes with an extremely bland design and a fear of taking any risks.
Which again is funny, because I don't even want games to do anything new and brave, I just want them to have a focus on nice gameplay, rather than mediocre storytelling and pretty assets. It's kind of a sad state of affairs that The Last of Us has been recently been (repeatedly) highlighted as something akin to the epitome of the evolution of video games . As a game it's extremely mid, and as a story the standard is still well below Hollywood trash.

[Sumez | 2,986]

4 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

AAA games definitely impact the gaming landscape more than indies.

Are you completely sure about that?

In the past, sure. Right now? I'm beginning to doubt it.

[wongojack | 220]

8 hours ago, avatar! said:

Based upon the poll results as of May 10, it looks like 80% of voters either say "neutral" or "very meh" -- granted this poll is not exactly scientific in nature and results may certainly change as more people vote, but nevertheless I think it's telling of the direction the industry is heading. Sure, right now 70% of revenues on Steam are still generated by AAA games, but as I pointed out previously, just a few decades ago 100% of revenue was from big-budget games. In 20-some years, big studios saw their revenue percentages decline by nearly 1/3... they should absolutely be paying attention. 

I see where you are going with this, but one would only see revenue decline if the total amount of money involved is equal.  If you had 100% of 10 dollars a week ago, but have 72% of 100,000 dollars today, you are very happy.

[Tulpa | 3,529]

8 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

AAA games definitely impact the gaming landscape more than indies. 

I think they impact each other more than the gaming landscape as a whole.

AAA games individually hog a lot of attention in the media and in many discussions, but the landscape is very diverse. In fact, I would say that with AAA games, there's a distinct static quality to many of them compared to indie games.

[avatar! | 1,826]

Moon Studios CEO on why AAA exclusives ran their course

https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/05/06/aaa-games-turning-point-thomas-mahler-moon-studios

“A lot of these huge corporations that were able to get investments not based on merit, but on hype, suddenly got gutted because they were too greedy,” the developer noted.

I think that's it in a nutshell. I do think AAA games will always have their place, but it's clear that a so-called "AAA game" does not mean quality.

[Tanooki | 4,948]

AAA (PS3 and before era) was meaning on quality of content

AAA, now -- how much money you piss into the pot while rolling on a table game hoping you don't crap out.  Big budget doesn't mean AAA anymore, just means you spent too much.

[RH | 4,946]

Y'all remember back in the 90s and early-00s when every new system seemed to be a remarkable, technical bump and we all just had to have the next new thing, 99% based off of graphics?

Yeah, well, IMHO, dev studios have been acting that we still behave and think that way.  What makes matters worse is the oft-needed Day-1 patch and, even then, dev studios worked so hard to make technically impressive games, it takes often months for AAA titles to be patched to a state where they are what the original designers/artists intended.

No one wants this.  Nintendo, in their own way, gets this.  That's part of why focusing on "withered hardware" has allowed them to stay relevant.  When you are a dev team and you know  you're not going to make the most technically impressive game of the year, you focus on what's enjoyable and fun.  To many studios have focused on massive environments or hyper-realistic graphics and left game play (and often even bug testing) along the wayside.  I can enjoy a good looking game, but this day and age, the "oh, shiny!" affect only keeps my attention for 5-10 minutes.  After that, I need good, inventive gameplay.  I just don't see that in many AAA titles, which is why I stay mostly stuck in the past and if I buy something new, it's almost always an indie title.

[Tanooki | 4,948]

The market and even more so the time I have at hand these days to play makes things very evident, and parallel @RH comments there on the last paragraph entirely.

What system do I still own having sold so much off the last 2-3 years?  SWITCH.  Last holiday season after 9 years I got a new computer i9 13900 series, 64GB of ram and a 4060 video chip setup.  When something comes in the next near decade I want from the land of console (or straight up PC) I'll be ready on that computer which makes the only sense anymore as things are.

They pushed too hard staying the course of when that actually mattered into now breaking their banks, their backs, and their employees hopes and dreams of a paycheck to chase the next financial crack fix they needed.  And in the end, the crack was laced with too much fentanyl instead.  Doesn't take but very little of that to kill the victim, and well, here we are.

Sad reality is, if every single 20-40+ year old third party up and died today and we were left with the rest, the industry on large would be in a far better place because those who don't try and keep up that idiotic pace are those winning.

[Brickman | 4,008]

5 hours ago, RH said:

Y'all remember back in the 90s and early-00s when every new system seemed to be a remarkable, technical bump and we all just had to have the next new thing, 99% based off of graphics?

Yeah, well, IMHO, dev studios have been acting that we still behave and think that way.  What makes matters worse is the oft-needed Day-1 patch and, even then, dev studios worked so hard to make technically impressive games, it takes often months for AAA titles to be patched to a state where they are what the original designers/artists intended.

No one wants this.  Nintendo, in their own way, gets this.  That's part of why focusing on "withered hardware" has allowed them to stay relevant.  When you are a dev team and you know  you're not going to make the most technically impressive game of the year, you focus on what's enjoyable and fun.  To many studios have focused on massive environments or hyper-realistic graphics and left game play (and often even bug testing) along the wayside.  I can enjoy a good looking game, but this day and age, the "oh, shiny!" affect only keeps my attention for 5-10 minutes.  After that, I need good, inventive gameplay.  I just don't see that in many AAA titles, which is why I stay mostly stuck in the past and if I buy something new, it's almost always an indie title.

I agree and I think this is one of the reasons indies have exploded in popularity. People at the end of the day want a fun game and indies deliver it. 

[inasuma | 1,203]

I def can’t speak for anyone else but almost every game that’s my favorite is not AAA.