The Paranoid Gamer writes: "Everyone is familiar new triple-A blockbuster games. But how many people actually know the effort that goes into them? Games such as Tomb Raider, Mass Effect 3, Hitman: Absolution, Bioshock Infinite all require enormous time and effort before they are put on shelves. But more importantly, they require money. Lots of it."
Check out the Year One Roadmap to see what comes after launch! Also, we’ve updated our recommended PC specs, and Collector’s Edition Unboxing videos are being posted.
Players are taking to Reddit to let Bethesda know they want ghoulification added to Fallout 76 in a future update.
Age of Water has made its debut on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S, with an Early Access PC version also available.
Man, that's a strange question. I think we should ask if aaa BUDGET'S are still viable (the budget not just the franchise alone). I mean: who would say not to a AAA title? But, the question is, does spending a AAA BUDGET guarantee that the game will see a profit for all the money spent making it. That is a question that I think developers/publishers are gonna be faced with.
People just need to live within their budget. Project management is essential.
Absolutely not. AAA titles were -always- a bad thing for the industry--specifically by contemporary standards.
This generation saw a massive spike in the amount of money necessary to create games... the manufactured "necessity" of creating AAA-experiences forced many independent developers to merge with large publishers in order to continue to develop games with the highest production values. EA and Activision did not take over the Western gaming scene this generation without reason, you know. Developers who stayed independent either went out of business, or were forced to merge with others (i.e. Square Enix). This is why most Japanese games are much less polished than western games--other than Square and Enix, most Japanese developers failed to jump on the AAA-bandwagon, and therefore had no need to join up with a mega-publisher.
AAA titles require a lot more money and a lot more people... it dilutes the creative vision, discourages innovation (if you're going to spend that much money on a game, so much that if it fails, you'll go out of business--see Kingdoms of Amalur--you want to make something you know will sell will), reducing both the quality and quantity of titles as development cycles expand.
The ultimate result is that we get prettier games... but not -better- games. Compare the combat of Final Fantasy XIII to Final Fantasy XII; compare the platforming of Uncharted to Jak & Daxter. We're waiting longer for more expensive games with unarguably better production values... but the games themselves are seldom better, and often far inferior.
That's bad for us (we're supposed to be gamers here).
And it's also bad for developers, as each AAA game becomes a massive risk. We're seeing entire companies fold, one after another, because a single game sold well, but not well enough.
But so long as fanboys insist on waging idiotic console wars, and insist the visual fidelity is the only metric by which to judge games, this state will persist.
Quantic Dream: Sequel kills creativity..
Wow an idiotic question. Stupid questions need stupid answers. YES!! its still viable. So you would rather play mobile games?? getting rid of triple A titles is like taking away "Hardcore" gaming. If its not viable then I would suggest to the author that he must not buy a PS4/xbox720/Wii-U because its a core gaming platform but also caters to casual. So go play some Temple Run 2 now thats one helluva game!!