The state of AAA games today and why smaller/mid tier developers doing best.

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

So my dear friends, just finished watching these videos. and what make all these in common? they are all from biggest video gaming company of today EA and activision. and have insane amount of budgets. but i dont understand wheres all these budget and money goes? wheres the billions of dollars goes? in marketing? how can they cant even make a decent games?

once upon a time people bash indie games or smaller dev games for bieng full of bugs and glitches but now they are now AAA developers are doing even worse. either its EA, its activision or ubisoft. they are all doing copy and paste. they can use this insane amount of money to make game that is bug and glitch free, worked on good AI, level design. but what they decide to do? hire expensive hollywood actors and give them millions of dollar for doing nothing.

now compare it to smaller or mid tier developers. they are making much better games, better level design. i mean look at system shock reboot. its not just a remastered its a proper remake and also reimangining but it has same level design with modern gameplay. look at 4A games. they had limited budget but still made excellent games. both metro games were excellent and now they have good budget and making it almost Stalker like sandbox enviroment. even IO interactive went independant because square enix were ruining them. but still they manage to make a great game despite bad marketing by SE.

only AAA developer today matter is id software and because they didnot forgot their roots and can still make amazing games. cant say same for other company.

so my friends, what do you think of state of AAA games? why developer dont put thier money to improve a game but wasting on marketing and expensive hollywood actors?

lets discuss.

 

[sanquin]

There are certainly more and more companies that focus more on graphics, actors and other such less important stuff than a quality product. Though there ARE more companies than just id software doing so. CD Projekt RED for instance.

Thing is, a lot of AAA companies got too big. I'm not sure why this happens (probably a lot of complicated stuff to do with economics and such), but the bigger the company, the more the focus becomes to make as much money as possible with the safest game they can make. There's also the fact that no matter how much those companies screw over their customers, and no matter how many bugs those games have, and no matter how shallow an experience they've become, millions of players will still keep on buying them for now.

We'll only see temporary change in one of two scenarios:
1: Gamers finally get their impulses reeled in and stop buying shallow, buggy pieces of crap that screw them over. (unlikely any time soon)
2: There's another big hit game that creates a new flavour of the year, which will then be followed by all the big companies wanting to cash in on it as well.

We'll only see permanent change in one scenario:
All these big AAA companies finally go under, and give way for a new wave of indie devs to become big. After all, the big ones started out small as well at first. But this one is even less likely to happen than scenario 1 above.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Basically what I said in my A new golden age for gaming? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1022932-A-new-golden-age-for-gaming#24131912] thread. There's better games with great production values being made outside of the AAA landscape so what's the point in even getting bothered over the bullshit AAA publishers are pulling? Lastly, AAA is not THAT bad, just look over the thread where people are posting their GOTYs [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1026237-Your-game-of-the-year] and just about all the best AAA games don't have any that bullshit whether it's a Horizon, Zelda, Mario, Persona 5, etc. There's still some good AAA publishers out there as well, Bethesda doesn't pull much bullshit and the games they release are complete experiences and they allow Arkane Studios to make 0451 games. So what that Bethesda did/does some iffy review stuff? Professional reviews are garbage anyway, it seems really odd on Bethesda's part for even doing that when they are really just losing all that free "9/10 Amazing!!!" marketing.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I don't think a gaming company just "gets big". They either market themselves to the lowest common denominator, are controlled by a bigger company or get bought up by a bigger developer or a publisher.

No matter what the case may be, they have some things in common;
Several additional layers between gamers and the "top brass".
Lowest common denominator trendy multiplatform games.
Greed Profit.

None of those speak of a love for games themselves, which will mean that games get treated much like movies.
Bloated advertisement and skewed reviews. "Big" names to direct, act, or voice characters. Flashy graphics. One-offs. Sequels.

Any follow-up once a game is released is only done out of avoiding negative PR.
Or if their market design calls for continuous influx of cash some slight reskinning or equally shallow modifications may be done.

 

[sXeth]

You got some high hopes for Metro there. If we're assuming publishers are direct connections with quality, its on Deep Silver, and that is not great company (Dead Island, Homefront, Agents of Mayhem, Risen, RIDE TO HELL lol). Both prior Metro's were THQ (even if Last Light got sold to DS in the bankruptcy before finally coming out), a definitive AAA company (Lesser budgets than flagship stuff perhaps, but if thats your dividing line, Ubisoft publishes about triple the indie games then they do AAA ones).

And the only person left at ID that conceivably can remember their roots is also the director of that awful free-to-play Quake thing and Rage as well as Doom. 1/3 is kind of a lackluster definition of greatness.

Io we've straight up never seen what they do on their own. Saying they'll do well or not is diagnosing Schrodinger Cat while the box is still sealed.

We'll only see permanent change in one scenario:
All these big AAA companies finally go under, and give way for a new wave of indie devs to become big. After all, the big ones started out small as well at first. But this one is even less likely to happen than scenario 1 above.

I mean of the big three

EA's original success (sort of) was cult RPG Bard's tale. "cult" doesn't really equate to success though. They mostly ballooned off lucking into the Madden license (then started buying everything else to milk them dry and drop them).

Activision is an oddball one. What is today Activision didn't really exist until about 10 years ago. When they merged with Vivendi (which included Blizzard, who everyone conveniently forgets is the same company as Activision at this point). Prior to that they were actually a pretty solid publisher and studio. Slightly before that merger they did start pioneering the yearly release (and driving Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero into the crowd), but there's a good spat where you had tons of solid stuff coming out Activision throughout the 90s and early 200s.\

Take Two were mostly floating on Rockstar. Good old GTA money gave them a bit of cash to play vulture with, they picked up SEGA's sports license as they went through troubles, alongside poking at THQ's corpse when they dropped out. Now they're ballooned up with sports franchise money, which seems to one of the main roots to churning out garbage.

Its somewhat interesting, that EA seems compelled to try and get their nickel and dime in on everything (as the giant roll of massive franchises that have died shortly after coming under their watch goes, even managing to get in trouble with Star Wars, the literal license to print money as media IPs go), while Activizzard and Take Two both seem to largely keep their golden geese (WoW and GTA) somehwat unmolested while jamming every other game up with monetizations. Ubisoft seems to have a similar level of deference to AssCreed and Far Cry while they are fine with jamming other titles up. Much the same could be said of Squeenix and Final Fantasy.


There other less prominent names that technically supersede those of course. While Valve's status as game developers is kind of questionable at this point, they're probably in close competition financially. And they certainly helped get microtransactions over for their own part. Tencent are officially the largest game company in the world, though their name is only really on products in Asia. They own RIOT (League of Legends) and Epic (Unreal Engine), and even part of that Activizzard blob. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most financially successful game company in the world is a giant megacorp that did not start in gaming at all.


For another funny trend, strategy games seem to somehow have been universally exempt from monetization strategies. Ubisoft has a decent roster of indie sims and stuff with nothing of the sort. Starcraft roams free from such things. TakeTwo actually publishes Civilization and Xcom.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

There's better games with great production values being made outside of the AAA landscape so what's the point in even getting bothered over the bullshit AAA publishers are pulling?

Agreed. Even despite this bullshit from the AAA side of the industry, the gaming landscape has never been better. There's more competition than ever before which leads to some pretty amazing deals and titles.

My game of the year is actually Divinity: Original Sin 2. I had a blast with it and it was completely unexpected because I couldn't get into the first one at all. There are so many titles to look forward to, so many games to play, that I don't see a reason to ever pre-order or buy most AAA titles at launch. In fact most of them can be purchased for 50% off a couple of months after launch, which is also enough time for all the bugs to be patched.

So all in all, fuck AAA and bring on indies and smaller devs.

 

[Hawki]

i mean look at system shock reboot. its not just a remastered its a proper remake and also reimangining but it has same level design with modern gameplay.

Isn't that game still in development?

only AAA developer today matter is id software and because they didnot forgot their roots and can still make amazing games.

Id strikes me as being more AA than AAA, but even that aside, they haven't made an "amazing" game since Doom 3.

cant say same for other company.

Blizzard and Nintendo for starters. Others most certainly exist.

so my friends, what do you think of state of AAA games?

I think Sturgeon's Law remains true - 90% of everything is crap. Things can be crap in different ways, but 90% of everything will still be crap, no matter how the crap comes out.

Frankly, I'm tired of a lot of the complaining. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's some stuff worth complaining about, but I just don't have the energy to be outraged. If I don't like something, I can, shock of all shocks, not buy it. It's also an inefficient method of criticism - I mean, those videos all come from EA or Activision games, so I don't think there's a rot in AAA games in of themselves, just certain publishers.

and they allow Arkane Studios to make 0451 games.

...what the heck is an 0451 game? 0_0

 

[dscross]

What makes something a triple A game? When they spend millions on development?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I'm with Jim Sterling on the idea that AAA development is a cultural mindset type thing.

It's when you make the game for "max profits by finding ways to turn Players into Payers" rather than "Making a good game, and trusting that the profits will come". It's about rigorously focus testing the game and throwing in "popular" mechanics without thinking about how it actually impacts the game experience. It's about spending tons of money on flashy trailers and marketing over the actual game because all that matters is if the game sells, not if it's actually good.

AAA used to be purely about the level of resources and scale of games and development teams. Now it seems to be more and more this mindset of "How do we separate as many people from as much money as possible as quickly as possible all at once?".

Despite this growing cancer in the industry, there's still plenty of good stuff out there. There's more and more prominent indie studios turning out quality stuff, nintendo remains as stalwart as ever, and Atlus are still amazing. Sure, there are massive goofs like EA ruining things and Square-Enix are basically a coin-toss at this point, but there's still good stuff out there to play. You just have to look for it a little, because the most highly advertised stuff is often riddled with issues.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

My current attitude is that AAA gaming can go die in a fire. In fact I'd like to see that happen. I'd esp. like to see the big names like EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc. crash and burn in a giant inferno.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

...what the heck is an 0451 game? 0_0

451 was the code for the first keypad-locked door in System Shock, an in-joke reference to the code to get into the Looking Glass offices (in turn perhaps to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451). It returned in some form or another in their other games, like Thief 1 and 2.

It's since become a sort of meta-homage in games made by former Looking Glass people, or ones that took inspiration from Looking Glass' concept of the immersive sim i.e. Deux Ex, BioShock, Dishonored, Prey, Tacoma, but also less obvious ones like Gone Home and Firewatch.

 

[laggyteabag]

Star Wars: Battlefront 2, Mass Effect: Andromeda, and Call of Duty: World War 2 have nothing to prove. All they need is flashy marketing, and name-recognition, and they are certain to get a commercial hit.

It just ends up being a "we'll release it now, and then we'll patch it later" kind of job. It doesn't matter if the game is well received or not, because it has already made bank, and EA/Activison/Ubisoft can smooth it over with PR jargon, or just ignore it entirely, and wait until the next installment.

AA and Indie devs need to actually prove themselves, and sell their product, mostly through word-of-mouth. If you release your game, and it is fun, and not broken, people will talk about it, and it will sell. They actually care about their finished product.

 

[sXeth]

Nintendo remains as stalwart as ever.

Amiibos would disagree with that. So would artificial scarcity to drive preorders. Mercedes advertisement dlc in Mario Kart.

Innovative ways to screw your consumers and muck up your games aren't exempt for being innovative.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Nintendo remains as stalwart as ever.

Amiibos would disagree with that. So would artificial scarcity to drive preorders. Mercedes advertisement dlc in Mario Kart.

Innovative ways to screw your consumers and muck up your games aren't exempt for being innovative.

Mercedes DLC I don't give a damn about.

Amiibos and artificial scarcity (especially both at one) I agree are horrendous fuckups on their part. 10 points to ravenclaw.

 

[Kerg3927]

Thing is, a lot of AAA companies got too big. I'm not sure why this happens (probably a lot of complicated stuff to do with economics and such)...

AAA companies got big through financial success, and reinvesting profits back into their infrastructure. Smaller companies also get big by being purchased and absorbed into an already big company.

... but the bigger the company, the more the focus becomes to make as much money as possible...

This is not because they are bigger. All for profit companies want to make as much money as possible. Their shareholders demand it. Even CD Projekt Red.

...with the safest game they can make. There's also the fact that no matter how much those companies screw over their customers, and no matter how many bugs those games have, and no matter how shallow an experience they've become, millions of players will still keep on buying them for now.

My theory is that the established brands owned by the AAA companies are what allow them to focus more on maximizing profits, because like you said, people will buy the game no matter what. It's because of the already existing brand recognition and because of their big budget marketing campaigns.

In my opinion, the above is what then leads to them making bland, safe games. The game will sell anyway, so to maximize profits, and minimize risk, they don't innovate, creativity is limited, and they try to do a paint by numbers approach to game design that appeals to as many people as possible, including the proverbial lowest common denominator. This leads to broader sales, but an alienation of the original, smaller fanbase that made the brand popular to begin with.

It could also lead to the brand's original creative talent departing due to being stifled by orders from above, which further degrades the game quality.

And if the complaints get too big, and it starts affecting overall sales, the AAA company just shuts it down and throws the brand on the trash heap of history, because it has other brands it can milk that haven't yet degraded, and it can acquire new ones by purchasing the lastest flash in the pan indies that emerge.

Meanwhile, if an indie game plays it safe, they get ignored and don't sell at all. They have to innovate. They have to be creative. They have to take risks just to get noticed. They also aren't going to sell big no matter what anyway, so they focus on a smaller niche audience, and try to make that group as happy as possible. But if they are successful, word spreads, sales increase, and they eventually become a AAA from the increased profits, or they get gobbled up by an existing AAA, and then the brand typically takes a turn down the path to degradation above.

This is what I think has been happening with Bioware since EA bought them. And from I've read, this is a pattern EA has become known and hated for. They are corporate raiders. The name of the game is to acquire a golden goose, kill it to extract the gold, and then toss it away, repeat.

It will be interesting to see if CD Projekt Red continues to stick to its indie roots and pro-consumer practices now that it is becoming a AAA.

 

[sXeth]

This is what I think has been happening with Bioware since EA bought them. And from I've read, this is a pattern EA has become known and hated for. They are corporate raiders. The name of the game is to acquire a golden goose, kill it to extract the gold, and then toss it away, repeat.

It will be interesting to see if CD Projekt Red continues to stick to its indie roots and pro-consumer practices now that it is becoming a AAA.

Bioware having ever been an indie dev would be a questionable assertion at best. Or that EA was particularly bad for them, with EA's watch seeing the first two Mass Effects and Dragon Age (which was approaching vaporware levels of extended development at the time from its first announcement) coming out under EA. I don't know anything especially about whatever got on the wrong side of people with Dragon Age 2. Mass Effect 3's ending and the brand damage thereof was classic Bioware fumbling at writing an ending though.

EA itself is pretty good at fumbling balls (I mean, they had probably the most viable WoW competitor fantasy MMORPG, years ahead of WoW itself and botched that), but they also seem to have a knack at picking up fumbling people. Origin was literally bankrupt of its own volition (Wing Commander being too expensive being a big part) and Garriot and others have admitted in interviews that they mismanaged resources EA gave them terribly to the point EA stepped in to maintain its investment on them. Bullfrog was Peter Molyneux, and his name is a byword for mismanagement and disappointment at this point. Dead Space suffered at EA poking into it overmuch, but the Visceral shutdown story isn't without a decent chunk of similar tales about their operations.

Game Developers or Directors rather, to more specifically address the creative auteurs. They seem to have a generally rough time handling professional concerns like deadlines, or accounting. John Romero is the big punchline joke of this idea. But you can look at the trails of half starts and failed or delayed kickstarters, and messes across the entirety of it. These folks have not done well once they cross into the business side whether its under a publisher or their own direction. Garriot, Roberts, Schafer, Romero, the Amalur guy, Notch, Murray, Molyneux, etc. They get that cash from wherever, start promising the moon, then start missing deadline after deadline while costs go through the roof.

CDPR has a lot of good graces. But acclaimed trilogy of games, runs a digital storefront company. We've been down this road before. They can't have the detrimental effects Valve has had, because Valve's already done it. But we haven't seen them run into any adversity yet.

 

[sanquin]

It will be interesting to see if CD Projekt Red continues to stick to its indie roots and pro-consumer practices now that it is becoming a AAA.

Imo, it's arguable that CD Projekt RED already got it's AAA status with Witcher 2. The game was certainly of AAA quality, and there was plenty of money behind it. Not to mention Witcher 3 which was even better and lauded as the best rpg, or even the best game, of that year by many.

Though it's indeed too early to tell what route they'll take. If they can indeed be considered AAA now they will have only just stepped onto the plate, rather than already being established for years with many games under their name.

 

[Nedoras]

What makes something a triple A game? When they spend millions on development?

Honestly I think that's what it used to mean, but now it seems like it's just a catch all term for anything Activision, EA, Ubisoft, 2K, or WB throws out there. I think calling something a triple A game is also taking into consideration how the thing is being presented. Does it have a stupidly large, bloated, marketing budget? Does it have a season pass? Microtransactions? Is a talking head in a suit screaming about how great the game is and that you should pre-order it right now? If so, then it's a triple A game. At least, that's my understanding of it.

 

[Yoshi178]

Nintendo remains as stalwart as ever.

Amiibos would disagree with that. So would artificial scarcity to drive preorders. Mercedes advertisement dlc in Mario Kart.

Innovative ways to screw your consumers and muck up your games aren't exempt for being innovative.

what artificial scarcity?

you mean the same artificial scarcity that lots of escapist members kept crying over in regards to the SNES mini? how'd that work out for you guys? last time i checked in Australia at least, EB games, JB hifhi and Target etc still have shitloads of the thing.

 

[sXeth]

Nintendo remains as stalwart as ever.

Amiibos would disagree with that. So would artificial scarcity to drive preorders. Mercedes advertisement dlc in Mario Kart.

Innovative ways to screw your consumers and muck up your games aren't exempt for being innovative.

what artificial scarcity?

you mean the same artificial scarcity that lots of escapist members kept crying over in regards to the SNES mini? how'd that work out for you guys? last time i checked in Australia at least, EB games, JB hifhi and Target etc still have shitloads of the thing.

Nah, if I was going to list the classics, I'd have said forced bundling (ya know, like when the TV company makes you buy 15 channels to get whichever 2 you actually want). Though the lone anecdote of one internet stranger is surely going to convince me in the face of friends, family, facebook people, other forum people here and elsewhere, actual news sites, and reviewers.

(Also you forgot to call me friend, and advocate the quality of a game that doesn't exist yet.)

Scarcity though would refer to the Switch itself, pro controllers, aforementioned Amiibos, the Wii-U. I'll give them a pass on the Wii itself, since everyone was kind of surprised at the demand for that one. While I admittedly don't live in major city, this college town that somehow supports 3 EBgames seems like it shouldn't run out of copies of a Mario game, particularly when there's a second Mario game somehow well-stocked sitting next to it (Kingdom Battle, which surprisingly enough, is Ubisoft publishing instead of Nintendo).