What’s driving this trend? The enshitification of triple AAA titles fucking slapping surcharges on EVERYTHING; day one dlc, microtransactions, always online DRM, the ability to revoke access to the shit we pay for, it’s death by 1000 cuts. EVERY anti-consumer action, every attempt to squeeze more of us while delivering the same rehashed shit over and over just drives me further into the arms of indie developers. The intent of us withholding our money and refusing to purchase your shit is to provide publishers with a sense of pride and accomplishment for retaining their customer base.
I’m too lazy to find my 3 year old comment but it went something like “AAA games are about as AAA as the mortgage bonds were in 2007”.
The era of the AAA gold standard is long gone. You no longer need a million dollar studio bankrolled by a big name publisher/console to make a groundbreaking AAA game.
Most if not all of those studios have been cost cutting for the past decade to maximize profit which is how we reached the current market of UE5 slop and DoA live service games.
There’s even an entire YouTube channel dedicated to showing how many current “AAA” titles have regressed in graphical optimization and quality from older game engines due to the lack of proper development, despite the advancement in consumer hardware.
The only AAA game that I have legitimately enjoyed and played more than once is Red Dead Redemption II. Other AAA games are okay, but they feel a bit hollow and lack the immersion that RDR2 has. Then again, RDR2 was showing off a bit with what the industry can do.
For me it’s a lack of creativity and innovation when it comes to gameplay. Indies or just smaller studio productions take more risks and that’s a lot more exciting.
Zero creativity, zero innovation, zero passion. Too many AAA games feel like all of the design and decision making happened in a boardroom full of executives and market researchers, then the actual designers and developers just churn out whatever the higher-ups have decided the product will be.
Must be multiplayer, ostensibly because people ‘demand’ it, but a narrative easy to believe when you know players are stuck with your servers and you can effectively shut down the game when it no longer makes money for you.
Relatively fewer games to be made, no chances may be taken. Conventional wisdom tells them that people got over turn-based in the 90s, so even the FFVII remake refused to do real turn-based, while Clair Obscur showed that it was still absolutely welcome gameplay.
I’m playing Baldur’s Gate 3 for the first time right now. I’m not particularly a fan of turn-based games, but I’m digging there interpretation of the genre. I like how each character has a limited amount of movement per turn and the ability to navigate through the entire environment. I’m surprised more developers don’t use a similar model.
I admit I was thinking about E33 as well, but my niche is narratively strong games or puzzle games. Too many AAA games are narratively disjointed open world messes and when it comes to puzzles indies are just king. Animal Well, Blue Prince, The Witness etc.
I’m happy with every AAA game striving for RDR2 level of quality if we also get AA games from the same studios. And of course indie games are always gonna indie.
If they try to make only super huge AAAs and nothing less, then games are infrequent and quality suffers when they have to be rushed out when money’s getting tight.
You know what this is called? A healthy and competitive market.
Yeah, I get there’s layoffs, but that’s mainly at AAA studios and is a symptom of a previously unhealthy, highly consolidated market. The job losses suck, but now diversity and competition is coming back, and that’s generally a good thing for consumers.
Whenever investors get involved things go downhill. If the only two parties are a buyer and a seller, the only way the seller can make money is by making a product the buyer wants to buy. But investors don’t care about the product. They may not even understand the product. They only care that the product makes money.
AAA studios are failing because they want to please investors, not buyers.
and it’s always worth distinguishing between executives and investors.
Executives are going to push the problem, but the core issue is shareholders. In the US, where most of these companies are based, a publicly traded company is expected to make money for its shareholders. Shareholders have subplanted customers in the companies ethical obligagions. The law has been used to make this national policy. Controlling shareholders can (and do) vote to remove company leadership that won’t act how they want. It is not just that they have to generate revenue, they have to generate as much revenue as possible as determined by shareholders. It’s corporate cartel tatics. Fail us and die. Do well and you’ll get rewarded with some of the take.
If a company goes public, It’s only a matter of time until it’s product goes to shit.
It was my understanding that it was a misconception that companies are legally bound to have an ROI or whatever. Not an economist so IDK. I just remember hearing that from several places. Regardless, the buyer-seller relationship is “I give you money, and you give me a product or service”. The investor-seller relationship is “We give you money, and you give us more money, and we don’t care how you do it.”
It was my understanding that it was a misconception that companies are legally bound to have an ROI or whatever. Not an economist so IDK. I just remember hearing that from several places. Regardless, the buyer-seller relationship is “I give you money, and you give me a product or service”. The investor-seller relationship is “We give you money, and you give us more money, and we don’t care how you do it.”
Only very technically. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. still made the shareholder a priority over the product or the customer (technically it only set the precedent). It’s a misconception that actual profit is the legal requirement. I suppose I’m guilty of furthering it, but it’s easier to keep the oversimplification than to explain the nuances when the outcome is the same. The controlling shareholders are the ones that create this issue because their votes affect company policy, and if they don’t like the way the company operates, they have more direct legal avenues to change and challenge it than you or I would.
Well then they are simply stupid. Because if they did care that the product makes money, they would care about what the buyer wants to buy, because thats how you make the money.
In their mind they can just take their money and invest in something else. They don’t care about long term value, just milking it for all its worth. Pump and dump, then move onto the next cow.
I’d love to play AAA games- Crimson Desert and Spider-Man 2 are on my wishlist. But now that they’ve been optimized for frame generation, my 3070 can’t play them to my standard.
If I’m going to stare at a pixelated mess, I’d rather it be curated by an indie artist than technical difficulties from DLSS compression
You’ve poisoned yourself. Chasing fidelity and refresh rates has done for graphics what short-form media did to attention spans. I’m emulating PS1 games and playing Fallout 4 on a 970 while my computer fans blow like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and I am free.
People forget what gaming was like before the consoles went mental. It’s just returning to it’s roots. Greatest pc games have always been small teams of passionate developers.
Good, nearly all AAA games provide is pretty graphics and little to no substance. Those that do are the very rare exclusions. Like CyberPunk2077, its story was good, graphics if you could run them good, but the gameplay was hollow until a lot of reworking.
I wouldn’t even consider Cyberpunk AAA. AAA to me is like. Ubisoft. Ea. Activision/blizzard. Those kinds of people. AA are games with decent funding but made to be good rather than a live service microtransaction slop. They’re your rockstars, atlus, segas, those kinds of studios.c
AAA isnt inherently synonymous with bad games that nobody wants to play. Its about the budget and size of the game/studio. Rockstar games are firmly AAA.
Like when BG3 came out and other devs whined about being unable to deliver such a game? Maybe they shouldn’t be considered AAA studios if all they do is waste their budget.
I’d pay the $70 or even $100 for a AAA title…if it released complete, relatively bug-free, and didn’t try to soak me with microtransactions and subscriptions.
idiots being too eager to throw ever increasing amounts of money at companies, to get what they used to get for 50, with zero self awareness that they are the cancer thats killing everything.
Counterpoint: games were more expensive in the past, sometimes even before adjusting for inflation. Goldeneye was $70 new.
The problem is that back then you bought a complete game to play forever. Now you buy an unfinished mess that despite costing as much, makes it abundantly clear that the game isn’t yours through DRM and in your face micro transactions.
True, but it’s at least a rough indicator, and having intact concrete pricing from back then was a bit challenging, and sears catalog came to me as a very well preserved source of vaguely appropriate pricing.
Well duh. Most of those AAA’s launch in broken states with lots of bugs and performance issues. And a lot of titles don’t even run well on the best hardware you can buy. Borderlands 4 ran atrocious on even the absolute best GPU you could buy.
And with the whole season pass, day one DLC, preorder bullshit, shit is more expensive than ever.
The industry only has themselves to blame for this.
The $70 is the introductory price, like the first dose of a drug that you get for cheaper to get you hooked. The actual price has been tabulated by a department with psychologist support to ensure it’s into the four digit range.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
It all costs too much now, and my backlog will hold me over until I die of old age. I’m at the age now where I don’t care about the new stuff.
What’s driving this trend? The enshitification of triple AAA titles fucking slapping surcharges on EVERYTHING; day one dlc, microtransactions, always online DRM, the ability to revoke access to the shit we pay for, it’s death by 1000 cuts. EVERY anti-consumer action, every attempt to squeeze more of us while delivering the same rehashed shit over and over just drives me further into the arms of indie developers. The intent of us withholding our money and refusing to purchase your shit is to provide publishers with a sense of pride and accomplishment for retaining their customer base.
I’m too lazy to find my 3 year old comment but it went something like “AAA games are about as AAA as the mortgage bonds were in 2007”.
The era of the AAA gold standard is long gone. You no longer need a million dollar studio bankrolled by a big name publisher/console to make a groundbreaking AAA game.
Most if not all of those studios have been cost cutting for the past decade to maximize profit which is how we reached the current market of UE5 slop and DoA live service games.
There’s even an entire YouTube channel dedicated to showing how many current “AAA” titles have regressed in graphical optimization and quality from older game engines due to the lack of proper development, despite the advancement in consumer hardware.
Care to link the channel for the curious friend?
https://youtu.be/ljWylilACdI
The only AAA game that I have legitimately enjoyed and played more than once is Red Dead Redemption II. Other AAA games are okay, but they feel a bit hollow and lack the immersion that RDR2 has. Then again, RDR2 was showing off a bit with what the industry can do.
RDR2 is a fucking masterpiece.
to me, aaa = mark of inferior quality, barring some exceptions
For me it’s a lack of creativity and innovation when it comes to gameplay. Indies or just smaller studio productions take more risks and that’s a lot more exciting.
Zero creativity, zero innovation, zero passion. Too many AAA games feel like all of the design and decision making happened in a boardroom full of executives and market researchers, then the actual designers and developers just churn out whatever the higher-ups have decided the product will be.
Yeah, AAA productions:
I’m playing Baldur’s Gate 3 for the first time right now. I’m not particularly a fan of turn-based games, but I’m digging there interpretation of the genre. I like how each character has a limited amount of movement per turn and the ability to navigate through the entire environment. I’m surprised more developers don’t use a similar model.
I admit I was thinking about E33 as well, but my niche is narratively strong games or puzzle games. Too many AAA games are narratively disjointed open world messes and when it comes to puzzles indies are just king. Animal Well, Blue Prince, The Witness etc.
that is my point exactly. doesnt matter how nice the game looks, if its uncreative crap nothing will save that.
To me, AAA means but it in 6-12 months for $10-20
They don’t seem to understand not every game needs to be a red dead.
I’m happy with every AAA game striving for RDR2 level of quality if we also get AA games from the same studios. And of course indie games are always gonna indie.
If they try to make only super huge AAAs and nothing less, then games are infrequent and quality suffers when they have to be rushed out when money’s getting tight.
You know what this is called? A healthy and competitive market.
Yeah, I get there’s layoffs, but that’s mainly at AAA studios and is a symptom of a previously unhealthy, highly consolidated market. The job losses suck, but now diversity and competition is coming back, and that’s generally a good thing for consumers.
Whenever investors get involved things go downhill. If the only two parties are a buyer and a seller, the only way the seller can make money is by making a product the buyer wants to buy. But investors don’t care about the product. They may not even understand the product. They only care that the product makes money.
AAA studios are failing because they want to please investors, not buyers.
It’s this.
and it’s always worth distinguishing between executives and investors.
Executives are going to push the problem, but the core issue is shareholders. In the US, where most of these companies are based, a publicly traded company is expected to make money for its shareholders. Shareholders have subplanted customers in the companies ethical obligagions. The law has been used to make this national policy. Controlling shareholders can (and do) vote to remove company leadership that won’t act how they want. It is not just that they have to generate revenue, they have to generate as much revenue as possible as determined by shareholders. It’s corporate cartel tatics. Fail us and die. Do well and you’ll get rewarded with some of the take.
If a company goes public, It’s only a matter of time until it’s product goes to shit.
I want to upvote this one million times
It was my understanding that it was a misconception that companies are legally bound to have an ROI or whatever. Not an economist so IDK. I just remember hearing that from several places. Regardless, the buyer-seller relationship is “I give you money, and you give me a product or service”. The investor-seller relationship is “We give you money, and you give us more money, and we don’t care how you do it.”
Only very technically. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. still made the shareholder a priority over the product or the customer (technically it only set the precedent). It’s a misconception that actual profit is the legal requirement. I suppose I’m guilty of furthering it, but it’s easier to keep the oversimplification than to explain the nuances when the outcome is the same. The controlling shareholders are the ones that create this issue because their votes affect company policy, and if they don’t like the way the company operates, they have more direct legal avenues to change and challenge it than you or I would.
Well then they are simply stupid. Because if they did care that the product makes money, they would care about what the buyer wants to buy, because thats how you make the money.
In their mind they can just take their money and invest in something else. They don’t care about long term value, just milking it for all its worth. Pump and dump, then move onto the next cow.
I’d love to play AAA games- Crimson Desert and Spider-Man 2 are on my wishlist. But now that they’ve been optimized for frame generation, my 3070 can’t play them to my standard.
If I’m going to stare at a pixelated mess, I’d rather it be curated by an indie artist than technical difficulties from DLSS compression
You’ve poisoned yourself. Chasing fidelity and refresh rates has done for graphics what short-form media did to attention spans. I’m emulating PS1 games and playing Fallout 4 on a 970 while my computer fans blow like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and I am free.
That and they are also $70 new. Like yeah no thanks
I fear for the new Mass Effect game.
People forget what gaming was like before the consoles went mental. It’s just returning to it’s roots. Greatest pc games have always been small teams of passionate developers.
The making of Goldeneye is a great documentary.
Good, nearly all AAA games provide is pretty graphics and little to no substance. Those that do are the very rare exclusions. Like CyberPunk2077, its story was good, graphics if you could run them good, but the gameplay was hollow until a lot of reworking.
I wouldn’t even consider Cyberpunk AAA. AAA to me is like. Ubisoft. Ea. Activision/blizzard. Those kinds of people. AA are games with decent funding but made to be good rather than a live service microtransaction slop. They’re your rockstars, atlus, segas, those kinds of studios.c
Rockstar is absolutely AAA.
Yeah I suppose. Can I at least call them 2.5 A? because they have AAA budgets but generally make good games that people want to play
AAA isnt inherently synonymous with bad games that nobody wants to play. Its about the budget and size of the game/studio. Rockstar games are firmly AAA.
Like when BG3 came out and other devs whined about being unable to deliver such a game? Maybe they shouldn’t be considered AAA studios if all they do is waste their budget.
I’d pay the $70 or even $100 for a AAA title…if it released complete, relatively bug-free, and didn’t try to soak me with microtransactions and subscriptions.
But that’s not what’s they’re selling.
Exactly. AAA is supposed to be pushing the standard forward and compete for my attention by making a better product.
If i can get an equally good or better game for less money i will obviously go for that.
This is whats wrong with gaming.
idiots being too eager to throw ever increasing amounts of money at companies, to get what they used to get for 50, with zero self awareness that they are the cancer thats killing everything.
Counterpoint: games were more expensive in the past, sometimes even before adjusting for inflation. Goldeneye was $70 new.
The problem is that back then you bought a complete game to play forever. Now you buy an unfinished mess that despite costing as much, makes it abundantly clear that the game isn’t yours through DRM and in your face micro transactions.
To provide a relatively decent source: https://christmas.musetechnical.com/ShowCatalog/1997-Sears-Christmas-Book
Around page 286. So 1997 christmas season, Starfox and Goldeneye going for $80… FFVII for $60…
N64 had the challenge that every single game was a circuitboard, so that inflated costs. Nowadays the price is for just the right to download a copy.
i mean, its also sears, premium store premium pricing.
I bought FFVII on launch day from Best Buy for 49.99.
True, but it’s at least a rough indicator, and having intact concrete pricing from back then was a bit challenging, and sears catalog came to me as a very well preserved source of vaguely appropriate pricing.
All those stakeholders be like
Do they still make AAA games anymore? They take so long to develop and lots of them get cancelled at the very end or a month after release.
No. AAA games don’t really exist anymore. They’re a thing of the past.
Believe most games people perceive as AAA are actually AAAA but its all a load of hogwash
What game is a AAAA game?
Whatever Ubisoft or Microsoft deem to be a AAAA game because they’re the only ones using that term.
Well duh. Most of those AAA’s launch in broken states with lots of bugs and performance issues. And a lot of titles don’t even run well on the best hardware you can buy. Borderlands 4 ran atrocious on even the absolute best GPU you could buy.
And with the whole season pass, day one DLC, preorder bullshit, shit is more expensive than ever.
The industry only has themselves to blame for this.
The $70 is the introductory price, like the first dose of a drug that you get for cheaper to get you hooked. The actual price has been tabulated by a department with psychologist support to ensure it’s into the four digit range.