What makes a AAA Games Company

[ZedClampet]

Directly related to a PCG article

Dr. Disrespect launches 'AAA game studio' with Call of Duty and Halo veterans

The Doctor is working with Robert Bowling and Quinn DelHoyo on a new multiplayer shooter.

www.pcgamer.com

I'm sorry, but we are past the point where a PvP only game should be considered AAA. Back in the day, Quake and other games set the standard for graphics and technology, but these days, games like Overwatch and Fortnite could be made by literally anyone. The graphics are pleasing (in Overwatch, not in Fortnite), but very basic, and the systems and gameplay have been around for many years. There is just nothing that sets them apart as being AAA. You have small indie teams creating games that are much more complex and have much better graphics. But those games aren't AAA while these mid-quality games by larger studios are? That's BS. A triple A game should be beyond the capacity of a small indie studio. It shouldn't be AAA just because a big company made it.

I'm sure this is what the rest of the thread probably says. I don't have time to go back and reread it now, but that article on Dr Disrespect just riled me up.

 

[Zloth]

A triple A game should be beyond the capacity of a small indie studio. It shouldn't be AAA just because a big company made it.

I don't think AAA is defined by the size of the company, it's about the budget for the game. A big company can make a small budget game (does Square/Enix have a division for that?) if they want. I guess it's theoretically possible that somebody would pay a small studio multiple millions of dollars to make a game, resulting in an idie studio making a AAA game, but it would be economically crazy.

The real killer, though, is that there's no official dollar amount that says game 1 is AAA while game 2 isn't. The most expensive games to make have to be AAA, the least can't be, but everything between? They can call themselves whichever one they want.

 

[Johnway]

I don't think AAA is defined by the size of the company, it's about the budget for the game. A big company can make a small budget game (does Square/Enix have a division for that?) if they want. I guess it's theoretically possible that somebody would pay a small studio multiple millions of dollars to make a game, resulting in an idie studio making a AAA game, but it would be economically crazy.

The real killer, though, is that there's no official dollar amount that says game 1 is AAA while game 2 isn't. The most expensive games to make have to be AAA, the least can't be, but everything between? They can call themselves whichever one they want.

i think the way the definition has become interchangeable across other industries and within gaming makes it harder to define. Personally, at this point i would define it as the big publishers (EA, activision, 2k, take 2 etc) themselves, i mean they're the ones who coined the term in the first place. i suspect that they wanted to be known for AAA quality. But over time its stuck as just big company (thanks jim sterling) and its a shame that we don't use AAA as a standard for quality which, lets face it, when it comes to games people's opinions will vary dramatically. its not like a high quality product like a tool, engine part, metal alloy etc.

Although how these companies churn out sequel after sequel annually you'd think they're trying their damn hardest to make it into a product. Just a shame that the quality for these games keep slipping when they come out of launch and they just say its in a condition fit for playing. We'll patch it till gets better. Frankly that's unacceptable, different hardware for pcs, fair enough but consoles having problems or just features straight up missing? If they still believe that what they produce is at AAA standard they're sorely mistaken. There is a lot of evidence to suggest the contrary.

 

[Colif]

AAA is all marketing. Its We are better than indie cause we are bigger. Not because we are better and have the games to prove it.
Many survive off the reputations of other games made in past. Their most recent versions are all pale ghosts of the games they ones were. Strip out features one year so you can reintroduce them as all new 5 years later... that isn't progress. (reminds me of windows 11)

Its only cause they can pay multiple websites to write gushing reviews of their games, and give them early access on the promise the future reviews will be nice, or you won't get early access next time. You end up with gameplay videos that are all cut scenes. And reviews that don't tell you anything about game. You get to point you don't even know what the game is like until its released and you are expected to love it. No criticism. No reality.

Same could be said for movies and TV shows now. When the main aim of product is to get a good review and it doesn't matter what the end consumer wants, you get things that don't sell but get amazing ratings. You would think it couldn't keep happening and yet... here we are. I wish people would realise Twitter isn't real life.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I usually judge by the game, more than the company. The honest truth is that most of the time, big budget game companies really do put out bigger games that have more put into them. And those are going to be a lot more cutting edge than indies. And the other honest truth is that the majority of indies are a bunch of 8-bit throwback side scroller garbage. But that's not how the whole market is. There is definitely a lot of trash on the AAA scene. And there are definitely some great gems in the indie scene.

Like RiME was an indie, and it was one of my favorite games. And you can look at a lot of others, like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. There are some great indies out there.

 

[Brian Boru]

the other honest truth is that the majority of indies are … garbage

Yeah, strange no one has mentioned that up to now. I would say very large majority, which makes finding the gems a curator's job, not mine.

Totally wild guess that out of 100 AAAs and 100 indies in my genres, I'd find 20 AAAs worth playing, and 2 Indies.

However, there are a bucket load more Indies released, so there should always be a good supply of them—for whoever can find them.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Yeah, strange no one has mentioned that up to now. I would say very large majority, which makes finding the gems a curator's job, not mine.

Totally wild guess that out of 100 AAAs and 100 indies in my genres, I'd find 20 AAAs worth playing, and 2 Indies.

However, there are a bucket load more Indies released, so there should always be a good supply of them—for whoever can find them.

Yeah, that last thing you said is where it's at. There are so many indies released that you still get a decent amount of good ones. And most of the time, you don't really need to do a whole lot of research to find the good ones. They usually float to the top and people talk about them.