Today's AAA titles seem to be keen on hyper realistic graphics with real-time ray tracing, perfect physics simulation for hair and clothes, motion capture performances of high profile actors, cinematic in-game cutscenes, orchestral music scores and so on. These things tend to blow up the budget.

But does any of it make the core gameplay better? Not necessarily, at least in my view. Lastly, if implementing these features means infesting the game with micro transactions and raising its price to absurd levels, then I'd rather not have them. Just my two cents.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-06-20, 02:19:

Today's AAA titles seem to be keen on hyper realistic graphics with real-time ray tracing, perfect physics simulation for hair and clothes, motion capture performances of high profile actors, cinematic in-game cutscenes, orchestral music scores and so on. These things tend to blow up the budget.

But does any of it make the core gameplay better? Not necessarily, at least in my view. Lastly, if implementing these features means infesting the game with micro transactions and raising its price to absurd levels, then I'd rather not have them. Just my two cents.

I'm not convinced that microtransactions are actually needed to pay for the bells and whistles that you mentioned. Rather, I think they just use that as an excuse for their business model. I'd bet that microtransactions are in games because they are a cash cow and people continue to buy them. If a game can make a ton of money without them, they will still be included if people continue to buy them. I could be wrong, but I'm skeptical of their necessity.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-20, 01:57:

I've never view AAA as a quality rating. I've always viewed it as a reflection of budget and/or publisher.

AAA = big budget title from major publisher

Same and I think that most people agree here. That's why do many of us complain about AAA games here. It's not that we're against quality games. Rather, a lot of us don't like the design choices that are common among big budget games. I'd add that AA games are a sweet spot for many people. These describe games with a medium sized team and budget, which are both smaller than those for games like the latest COD or GTA. AA games can still have the massive worlds and nice graphics, but they often feel more like a labour of love.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-06-20, 05:25:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-20, 01:57:

I've never view AAA as a quality rating. I've always viewed it as a reflection of budget and/or publisher.

AAA = big budget title from major publisher

Same and I think that most people agree here. That's why do many of us complain about AAA games here. It's not that we're against quality games. Rather, a lot of us don't like the design choices that are common among big budget games. I'd add that AA games are a sweet spot for many people. These describe games with a medium sized team and budget, which are both smaller than those for games like the latest COD or GTA. AA games can still have the massive worlds and nice graphics, but they often feel more like a labour of love.

100% agree.
Only modern game I play is Farming Simulator. Not exactly mainstream so would classify it as AA. While you do have to pay for the official DLC, none of it is required for gameplay and plenty of free mods can do the same. Plus you can still buy the game and even the DLC on DVD if you wait for whatever name they are giving the collector pack this edition. It even has it's own international esport competition!?

The only modern games that tempt me are the old titles like GTA, Diablo, etc but then read the poor reviews, the loot boxes, etc and then think these are totally different games with totally different developers then the games I loved.
and as already mentioned by others I've plenty in my back catalogue to keep my busy for rest of my life

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-06-20, 05:19:

I'm not convinced that microtransactions are actually needed to pay for the bells and whistles that you mentioned. Rather, I think they just use that as an excuse for their business model.

I agree that some (most?) of it comes from publisher greed, but at the same time, I can see why game development costs today are higher than 15-20 years ago.

The solution is simple though, they just need to make more modest titles. Not every game needs photo realistic cutscenes with motion capture actors, where each strand of hair has its own physics behavior and every shiny surface demands ray traced reflections. Maybe they can go for a more stylized approach, with cell shaded graphics to save some money. If the gameplay is good, it should still sell.

Earlier this year, I did quit playing 'War Thunder', after enjoying it for 8 years. It may be around in 8 years still, or it may not be. But no retro computer would be able to bring it back.
So yes, it was my choice to pick war thunder, but there really isn't much comparable old school alternative. So you make the 'real time' experience and enjoy while it lasts. Same with partners. Gone when gone.

I gave up on games a LONG time ago - when it got to the point where could no longer just buy and disk and install it (without having to have an "account" somewhere)

Because the disk isn't needed any longer and it makes no difference in the end. Just wasted plastic.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-06-20, 07:36:

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-06-20, 05:19:

I'm not convinced that microtransactions are actually needed to pay for the bells and whistles that you mentioned. Rather, I think they just use that as an excuse for their business model.

I agree that some (most?) of it comes from publisher greed, but at the same time, I can see why game development costs today are higher than 15-20 years ago.

The solution is simple though, they just need to make more modest titles. Not every game needs photo realistic cutscenes with motion capture actors, where each strand of hair has its own physics behavior and every shiny surface demands ray traced reflections. Maybe they can go for a more stylized approach, with cell shaded graphics to save some money. If the gameplay is good, it should still sell.

What I always say, yes, the budget of the average AAA games blew up close to 10× of what it was 20 years ago (though a lot of the costs are because of ineffective company structure and consulting firms that add no value to the product). But the market (units sold) also grew 10× as well as distribution costs went down with digital distribution significantly. Publishers could be more profitable than they were 20 years ago without post-launch monetization. But unlike 20 years ago, today post-launch monetization is a viable business option and they can get away with it most of the times so they do it anyway.

If publishers really wanted to, they could easily increase profits by cutting costs instead of raising revenue. There is a lot to cut without negatively affecting the quality of the end product.