130°

AAA – Developers discuss the three little letters: "It's a stupid term. It's meaningless"

Revolution Studios co-founder Charles Cecil remembers first hearing the term, "A number of publishers basically said, 'For every dollar we spend on internal development, we're going to account for a profit of three or four or five dollars,' or whatever. Virgin in particular had a lot of internal development, and they were posting huge profits, and that was fine, as long as you never ship the product – and by god, you never can it, because then you take an almighty write-off."

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
anast150d ago

AAA is advertised as that the product is the highest quality and the top of the companies creative form. The term hasn't changed, the talent and quality of the work has. If the AAA label meant inferior quality to the general public then the term would have changed to fit the actual products being released. We can say a lot of things are meaningless to us, but it doesn't make it so.

ED-E150d ago

It was always a loose term for budget scale, whoever tricked you into thinking it referred to quality was wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

anast150d ago (Edited 150d ago )

No one is being tricked on my end. It is implied through adverts. When a product is being advertised and people see AAA they think big budget equals high quality and to say otherwise is disingenuous. They wouldn't advertise the product just to simply tell everyone how much money they spent, it's absurd. If AAA only meant budget then it would be a waste of time to use the term as an advert hook. I wouldn't use a Wikipedia if you are trying to teach people lessons about not being a sucker.

thorstein150d ago

He didn't read the article. They talk about the terms origin and how it didn't refer to games until the 90s.

anast149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

@thor

I read the article. It's all people's relationship with a word. I don't discount their relationship. I made a statement about how the word has meaning in the general public.

I'm not arguing etymology here. That is obscure. I am talking about how the word has meaning to the general public. To think it only a definition without an implication is short.

thorstein149d ago

Anast,

You don't know more nor better than people who have been in the industry since the 1980s.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 149d ago
CrimsonWing69150d ago

I don’t think it’s meaningless, to be honest. I think it’s a fine way to classify games with a specific budget and talent behind it… not saying they’re all great or anything, but there’s a distinction between indie, AA, and AAA games. Not all games are made equally.

Gaming4Life1981150d ago

I agree with what your saying about games with a specific budget and talent level define the meaning of AAA. The term AAA does not mean what it used to and should not be taken as such.

SoloZelot90150d ago

Modern triple A games aren't actually triple A. Triple A means high quality. They for some reason placed high budget as one of the things that define triple A and that is just not the case.

Hades for example is an example of a high quality game...triple A. Starfield on the other hand is like a AA low quality title.

CrimsonWing69150d ago

That’s extremely incorrect. AAA has always referred to high budget and big-scaled developed/produced games. Hades is NOT AAA, that’s an indie game.

Again, AAA is the budget and size of the people working on it. And Starfield is AAA…

anast150d ago (Edited 150d ago )

People think big budget means high quality. To say otherwise is disingenuous and being obscure. In your own reply you used the term "talent". If talented people are working on something, what are the expectations of the public product?

CrimsonWing69150d ago

@anast

High budget doesn’t inherently mean the “qulaity” I think @Solo is meaning, but that’s not the point of the AAA label. AAA is an industry term that describes the scale of investment and team size, not quality.

Hades is a great title, but remains an indie title because of its smaller budget and team. Starfield, despite its divisive reception, is undeniably AAA due to its production scale. Talent doesn’t guarantee perfection, but it defines ambition—and AAA reflects the ambition of resources, not just results.

I don’t know what your definition of “quality” is, but a AAA game does have significantly higher quality visuals and production values than a AA or indie venture, regardless of your feelings on the game experience, itself.

But I don’t think the word “quality” is being used in the right sense here. I think @Solo is referring to his enjoyment of a game vs the shift in corporate decisions most AAA games have gone in. While there’s argument to be had that Hades is a “quality” experience, it’s still not a AAA game in terms of production costs and amount of developers on the project, no matter how you try to argue it is.

I should’ve used a better word than “talent” in my previous post. I was really meaning the amount of devs on the project. Indie and AA games have amazing talent working on them, just not the budget or amount of devs that a AAA venture has. That’s really the defining factor between the two. For example, imagine the same amount of staff and budget working on a Hades game that worked on Spider-Man 2. It would be a higher “quality” game, maybe not necessarily a higher “quality experience” of a game, but the visuals and production in the game would more than likely be “higher quality.”

Hope that makes better sense.

anast150d ago (Edited 150d ago )

But your instinct went straight for the word "talent", your reply is filled with quality. Quality in a product is taken wholistically by the consumer. To think otherwise is incorrect and vastly minimizes the strength of implication which is a synonym for meaning, when it comes to advertising.

CrimsonWing69149d ago

@anast

Ok, let me make this clearer then: Indie games are not AAA no matter the “quality” they have.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 149d ago
Goodguy01150d ago

Simply just means it's a heavily funded game and developed by a hundred plus developers. Doesn't mean it'll be a great game as we've seen many times.

thorstein150d ago

It's interesting to see that AAA was an investment term before it became what it is today. I remember even the early days, no one referred to Super Mario Bros. as AAA or Donkey Kong on Colecovision as AAA.

It was a stupid term.

Show all comments (27)
110°

IndieQuest 2025 Proved Indie RPGs Aren’t Just Alive—They’re Leading the Revolution

Indie Quest 2025 is a digital showcase event dedicated to independently developed Japanese Role-Playing Games (JRPGs). Curated by Taylor Hoyt of the YouTube channel The Gaming Shelf, the event premiered on May 29, 2025.

Read Full Story >>
rushdownradio.net
thorstein3d ago

Forge of the Fae just hits all the right notes. Everything I've seen makes me want it.

220°

Shuhei Yoshida warns subscription services could become 'dangerous' for developers

'If the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry.' -Shihei Yoshida

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
Sonyslave35d ago

🙄 same guy who said 80$ is a steal lol and according to him M$ shouldnt put good on a services🤣 wtf

Obscure_Observer5d ago

Talks about "innovation" while all his previous company is focused on is GaaS and Remasters. Smh.

This guy is a walking contradiction.

pwnmaster30004d ago

This makes no sense at all.
What does his PREVIOUS company have to do with him and his statement??
Did he have a say on what they are doing? Could of sworn that was Jim Ryan’s fault?

Outside_ofthe_Box4d ago

"This guy is a walking contradiction."

The irony

Profchaos4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Yet he was In charge and led the PlayStation to overtake xbox

Console VR was birthed because if him he pushed the whole psvr project if that isn't innovative then what is.

Doesn't matter how many alts you use to try and constuct ab alt narrative shu is highly respected in the industry and has done as much for gaming as some of the best names in the industry

Obscure_Observer3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@Profchaos

I don´t care what he did in the past.

Sony didn´t cared for him either as he was forced to accept a role as CEO of Indie games or get out! After everything he done for the company.

https://www.eurogamer.net/f...

I been seeing LOTS of innovative day one games on Gamepass (Including Clair Obscur) and all I´ve been seeing for Playstation first party @Full Priced is mostly (but not only) GaaS and Remasters. Deny all you want, that´s the truth.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
XiNatsuDragnel5d ago

I can agree with that on some level

robtion4d ago

Subscription services are absolutely awful. They have essentially destroyed the movie industry and unfortunately gaming may be next.

In the long term you will end up needing 10 different subscriptions and the prices will keep going up while the quality keeps going down.

MrDead5d ago

Subscription services have f***ed the movie industry and it's work force, caused massive studio buyups by companies like Disney consolidating huge parts of the industry under one roof and have creatively sterilised the IP's they've gobbled up. The same thing is happening to gaming, MS being the main greedy piggy.

goken4d ago

Well… if you’re talking about the US movie industry, then I couldn’t agreed with you more.
But the movie industry isn’t just the US. For some other countries, it’s been considered good. Like where i am, the movie industry here used to be terrible, now it’s a bit less terrible. Mostly this is because in the past movies only can make money mostly on it’s cinema run, but now after the cinema run they can get some funds from the subscription services. Which helps significantly.
But these movies mostly suck due to the low budgets and general lack of talent lol

Vits5d ago

I get what he's saying, but I don’t think we need subscription services to see a lot of the problems he's pointing out. All we really have to do is look at the gaming industry over the last two console generations. Even without subscriptions, the big AAA publishers have already been moving in a direction where almost every game feels like it's built from the same template. It’s all about streamlined, safe design choices that are meant to appeal to the widest possible audience. At this point, you could probably ask an AI to make a AAA game from a certain publisher and it would spit out something pretty close to what they’re actually making.

Now, about the whole “walled garden” thing... that’s not some future problem, it’s already here. Consoles have always worked like that. Their entire business model is based on controlling what gets released on their platforms. Sure, maybe they’re not as locked down as the extreme examples people bring up, but the end result is similar. If you’re not making the kind of game the platform holder wants, you’re probably not getting through the door. We’ve seen it with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, even Valve does this in its own way with Steam. So yeah, the issue isn’t new or exclusive to subscription services.

Would a subscription-only future make that problem worse? Sure, it definitely could. But I don’t think we’re heading in that direction anytime soon. Unless physical hardware truly becomes a thing of the past and everyone switches to streaming games, I just don’t see subscriptions becoming the dominant model. They’ll stick around as an option, but I doubt they’ll take over completely.

Now, what will take over completely is digital media, and that’s a whole different issue that’s going to hit us a lot sooner. PC and mobile are already basically 100% digital, and that makes up around 70% of the gaming market. The remaining 30% is consoles, and even there we’re seeing the shift. Sony’s removing the disc drive from boxed consoles, Nintendo is releasing just one super expensive 64GB cartridge for their new system, which means almost all third-party publishers will end up going digital and Microsoft is mostly digital already. You either get a digital-only or a physical box with disc that only acts as a activation key. So yeah, that future’s already knocking on the door and the damage will be enormous.

CrimsonWing695d ago

Right, because then you can’t sell individual games at $80, which is an incredible value for the consumer!

BLow4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

I find this statement quite telling. Apparently a certain fan base wasn't buying games at $60 or $70 dollars either. That's why the Gamepass model exists with day and date. What was the excuse then?

We as gamers want it all but don't want to pay for anything. Well, I take that back. A good chunk of them. You don't have to buy a game at $80. Wait for to go down in price. Most gamers have a massive backlog. Play those games until the one you wants drops and n price. Simple

goken4d ago

I never buy any games at full price, it’s up to the consumer to wait for a price cut.

Generally I don’t buy above $10, normally around $5. So don’t agree with 80 70 60? Just wait a bit

CrimsonWing694d ago

Totally fair if that approach works for you, but the flip side is that some dev studios do rely on full-price sales to stay afloat—especially smaller or AA teams. The ‘just wait for a sale’ mindset can really hurt games that aren’t backed by massive budgets or publishers.

It’s also kind of a bummer to finally see a game release you’ve been hyped for, only to feel like you have to wait another year or two just to get a decent discount.

That said, I think the deeper issue is with bloated dev budgets. It’s wild seeing games like First Berserker or Expedition 33 launching at $50 while still managing to look great and make a profit. Meanwhile, some AAA studios say $70 isn’t enough to break even. That raises real questions about where the money’s going and whether the pricing problem is actually a budgeting problem.

thorstein4d ago

To me, it depends on who made it and who will profit.

I bought No Man's Sky back in 2016. They gave me all updates, PSVR,PS5, and PSVR2 versions all for free.

That makes it worth every dollar I spent. Same with Balatro, Stardew Valley, Dave the Diver etc.

Chevalier4d ago

Yeah weird it's like a certain fan base that doesn't buy ANY games and their sales cratered that was why prices has gone up to $80...... hmmm...... they've the same one that has tried to buy up the industry and now has to release games on competing platforms to be viable now...... but you know the studio/company slipped my mind

goken3d ago

You have a point on the bloated development budgets.

I mean look at black myth wukong’s $80m budget vs the $150-200m (possibly more) budget of concord.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
Show all comments (37)
60°

Razer’s AI Dev Tools Are Coming to the Cloud Through AWS

Razer’s AI dev tools are coming to AWS, bringing smarter QA and gameplay support to the cloud. See how this could improve the games you play.

Read Full Story >>
clouddosage.com