That seems to only be the headline that makes such a bold claim. The article text says that they’ve got people on board with AAA experience and that they feel like they could tackle a project with AAA budget. Now, it’s up to potential investors to determine the actual budget…
That shouldn’t be possible, but that’s what marketing does: it uses whatever words purport to convey quality and beat that word dead then keep going.
IMO, an AAA studio should be a studio that released and keeps releasing games that are highly rated. Budget, name, location, or whatever else shouldn’t matter one bit. Make good games, that’s what matters. Who gives a shit if it cost 10 billion to make a shit game. Doesn’t make you AAA.
Words have meaning, sure, but it doesn’t have to be the same for everybody. Especially such marketing terms that are thrown around willy-nilly to sound important and get investors on board.
That being said I think there should be an independent organization in charge of defining what is and is not triple A. Like if you buy the game and it still has micro-transactions and loot-boxes it should be disqualified from being considered AAA. I don’t think having a large budget by itself should be enough.
Well, for good vs. bad, we have review scores. For micro-transactions and loot-boxes, you may find indicators on storefronts or from youth protection agencies, but I agree that a more standardized effort would be better here.
You have it backwards, though. Indies basically never have micro-transactions and loot-boxes, whereas AAA has lots of them.
Can you just declare yourself a “triple-A” studio before you make a game?
Sure, why not. After all, ‘Skull and Bones’ was declared a quad-A game, so the label doesn’t mean anything anyways.
That seems to only be the headline that makes such a bold claim. The article text says that they’ve got people on board with AAA experience and that they feel like they could tackle a project with AAA budget. Now, it’s up to potential investors to determine the actual budget…
That shouldn’t be possible, but that’s what marketing does: it uses whatever words purport to convey quality and beat that word dead then keep going.
IMO, an AAA studio should be a studio that released and keeps releasing games that are highly rated. Budget, name, location, or whatever else shouldn’t matter one bit. Make good games, that’s what matters. Who gives a shit if it cost 10 billion to make a shit game. Doesn’t make you AAA.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
It by definition makes you triple AAA if you have a large team with a large budget. It has absolutely nothing to do with quality
I’m saying that it should be. Money shouldn’t be synonymous with quality - because it isn’t.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Right but words have meaning, and AAA doesn’t refer to quality, even though many seem to think it does.
Words have meaning, sure, but it doesn’t have to be the same for everybody. Especially such marketing terms that are thrown around willy-nilly to sound important and get investors on board.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
It’s an industry term that got picked up by marketers unfortunately
They do destroy a lot 🫠
AAA is about size, not quality. If they have the budget they can make a AAA game.
That being said I think there should be an independent organization in charge of defining what is and is not triple A. Like if you buy the game and it still has micro-transactions and loot-boxes it should be disqualified from being considered AAA. I don’t think having a large budget by itself should be enough.
Well, for good vs. bad, we have review scores. For micro-transactions and loot-boxes, you may find indicators on storefronts or from youth protection agencies, but I agree that a more standardized effort would be better here.
You have it backwards, though. Indies basically never have micro-transactions and loot-boxes, whereas AAA has lots of them.