this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
168 points (96.7% liked)

PC Gaming

8784 readers
362 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

AAA is the budget, not a review of the game.

Being an indie developer, they didn't pump a whole lot of money into this game.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

TIL. It makes a little more sense why Ubisoft just declared a game as AAAA - they spent a lot of money on it. It didn’t mean we as gamers get a better experience

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Well, it's a bit of a catch 22 in that case. Because so much money is being spent on developing the game, there's an expectation of high quality in order to get a return on that investment. And charging more for a game, well, we as consumers expect a better game than a standard $60 game.

The problem with Ubisoft's case is they spent the "AAAA" budget for a mediocre game. Had the game been awesome, we'd probably be cheering on the idea of a AAAA game.

[–] Leuthil 2 points 9 months ago

Palworld still ended up costing millions of dollars, although not tens of millions.